https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243000 The High Court allowed the appellant to file an application for rectification before the Tribunal. The issue of the authorized representative was resolved in favor of Vijay Agarwal, who was confirmed as an authorized signatory of the appellant. The Court clarified that an authorized representative can be a regular employee, not solely a legal practitioner. The appeal was dismissed as lacking merit, with the argument that only a legal practitioner could be an authorized representative deemed misconceived. en-us Thu, 09 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Nov 2014 11:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243000 The High Court allowed the appellant to file an application for rectification before the Tribunal. The issue of the authorized representative was resolved in favor of Vijay Agarwal, who was confirmed as an authorized signatory of the appellant. The Court clarified that an authorized representative can be a regular employee, not solely a legal practitioner. The appeal was dismissed as lacking merit, with the argument that only a legal practitioner could be an authorized representative deemed misconceived. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 09 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243000