TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (7) TMI 932
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommissioner of Central Excise (Adjn.), New Delhi by his Order-in-Original No. 3/2000, dated 5-4-2000. In his order, he has noted that serious attempts were made to serve notices on the appellant and other noticees and all the noticees were returned with endorsement "unclaimed-returned to sender". Later on, hearing took place during which time one Shri Mir Fazal Hussain, Consultant appeared for the parties. The Commissioner after due consideration and after examining the entire records passed the impugned order, confirmed the demands besides imposition of penalty on the appellant as well as on various other persons. 2. The appeal was filed by the authorised signatory. Director, Shri Thyaga Rajan Mudaliar. Notices were issued to the add....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m 29 of the Companies Act, 1956, which indicated an application was presented by the present appellant incorporating him as the Director of the Company. He was incorporated as a Director by issue of Form-29 on 5-6-2000. 4. On the basis of this application and evidence, the affidavit filed by him to restore the appeal was taken up and the appeal restored by observing in Para 3 of the Misc. Order No. 4/2001, dated 8-1-2001 as follows :- "On careful consideration of the submissions made, we agree with the learned DR that the appellants should have furnished the correct address for service of notice. Now the Counsel has furnished the correct address of the Director as well as that of the Advocate to enable the Registry to serve the notic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atter has been pending for too long and that initially the appeal was dismissed for non-service of notice. It was further restored only when appellant contended that he was the Director but however question of his locus standi had not been gone into. The Bench is justified in raising this question. He opposes the prayer for adjournment on the ground that it was incumbent on the part of appellant to have demonstrated when he was filing the appeal that he had locus standi to file the appeal on behalf of the Company under Companies Act, 1956. Since he has not filed the resolution passed by the Directors of the Company and no such resolution has been submitted under the Companies Act, 1956, therefore appellant has no locus standi to contest thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(91) E.L.T. 543, which was relied by the DR. Hence, the appeal was dismissed under Rule 11 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules. Later, the appellant filed application seeking restoration of the appeal. The appellant was called upon to produce proof of his being a Director and has the authority to represent this Company, a juristic person. He produced the above extracted portion of the letter and Form-29 issued under the Companies Act, 1956. The Form-29 was issued only on 5-6-2000 incorporating him as the Director while the order of dismissal had been passed by the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 1579/2000, dated 16-11-2000. The appellant had merely submitted that he was the Director and now that he had furnished address, the matter should be restored.....