RAJU SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER dispensing with the condition of both sides, I proceed to decide the appeal itself. For better appreciation, the relevant paragraph of Commissioner (Appeals) order dismissing the appeal on limitation is being reproduced below: - -

(2.) I find that the appellant's contention is that he was in jail during relevant period and it is only on receipt of recovery proceedings, he came to know about the order which was actually received by them on 20 -4 -2013 and the appeal was filed on 22 -4 -2013. It is also his contention that inasmuch as the appellant received the order in July and during the relevant period, he was in jail, the appeal memorandum was signed by his brother. Learned Jt. CDR is objecting to signatures of his brother on the ground that the applicant should have authorised his brother as laid down in the CBEC Excise Manual of Supplementary Instructions.

(3.) I really fail to understand the objection raised by the learned Jt. CDR. If the appellant was able to give the authorization to his brother, he could have very well signed the appeal papers himself. As the appellant, during the relevant period was in jail, as supported by his affidavit, filing of appeal under the signatures of his brother, may not be a serious objection, inasmuch as the same is a rectifiable defect and the applicant can sign the last page of the appeal, even subsequently and can rectify the defect.