1983 (6) TMI 190 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in appeal filing under Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a Misc. Petition filed by a company arising from an appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. The appeal was dismissed due to a mistake in filing. The appellant argued that the appeal was filed by an officer of the company holding a Power of Attorney issued under the Articles of Association, thus meeting the requirements of law. The appellant requested rectification of the mistake under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act within the limitation period of four years. The appellant emphasized that the mistake was unintentional and that rectification would not affect the other party's liability. The appellant also submitted a photocopy of the Power of Attorney with the rectification application to support their claim of proper filing.

The Departmental Representative objected to the rectification proceedings, claiming that it was not a mistake. However, upon reviewing the facts, it was found that the Manager, Personnel and Administration had a valid Power of Attorney dated November 11, 1982, meeting the requirements under the Income-Tax Act, 1961. The definition of 'Principal Officer' under the Income-Tax Act includes a manager of a company, which supported the appellant's argument. Legal references were made to Kanga and Palkhivala's The Law and Practice of Income-Tax and the Code of Civil Procedure to establish the authority of a Power of Attorney to act on behalf of a company. Previous case laws were cited to show that a Power of Attorney can sign on behalf of a company, further strengthening the appellant's position.

The judgment concluded that the signatory of the appeal held a valid Power of Attorney, which was a material fact overlooked by the Court leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Citing legal precedents and the Income Tax Tribunal judgment, the Court held that the mistake was apparent from the record and directed the reopening of the appeal hearing. Both the appellant and the respondent were instructed to appear for the final hearing of the appeal on a specified date. The judgment highlighted the importance of rectifying genuine mistakes to ensure justice and adherence to legal procedures.