https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170019 The appeal, stay application, and related documents were dismissed by the Tribunal due to the misrepresentation of directorship and lack of authorization for filing the appeal. The appellant company's appeal was found to be non-compliant with Rule 8(3) of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, as Sh. Ritesh Kumar Goel, who was not authorized, filed the appeal as a director. The Tribunal stressed the necessity of adhering to procedural rules to maintain the integrity of legal proceedings. en-us Thu, 26 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 May 2015 18:00:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170019 The appeal, stay application, and related documents were dismissed by the Tribunal due to the misrepresentation of directorship and lack of authorization for filing the appeal. The appellant company's appeal was found to be non-compliant with Rule 8(3) of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, as Sh. Ritesh Kumar Goel, who was not authorized, filed the appeal as a director. The Tribunal stressed the necessity of adhering to procedural rules to maintain the integrity of legal proceedings. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 26 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170019