2003 (9) TMI 633 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Appeal filed by third party, Jurisdiction of filing appeal, Legal entity representation

The judgment of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi dealt with the issue of an appeal filed by a third party on behalf of a firm against an impugned order-in-appeal. The key contention was whether the appeal filed by the third party, who described himself as the Managing Partner of the appellant-firm, was valid or not. The Tribunal analyzed the jurisdiction of filing an appeal in such cases and the representation of a legal entity by its partners.

The Tribunal observed that the show cause notice was issued to the firm, M/s. Smart Rubber Industries, regarding the confiscation of unaccounted goods and imposition of penalties. The adjudicating authority's order-in-original imposed penalties and provided an option for redemption of goods. Importantly, no appeal against this order was filed by the firm itself, M/s. Smart Rubber Industries. Instead, the appeal was filed by Shri Ajay Arora, claiming to be the Managing Director of the firm.

The Tribunal emphasized that a firm is a distinct legal entity capable of suing and being sued in its own name. Therefore, an appeal filed by one of its partners in his individual capacity cannot be considered as an appeal filed by the firm. The Commissioner (Appeals) rightly dismissed the appeal filed by Ajay Arora, as no adverse order had been passed against him personally by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) as legally sound.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no illegality in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and upheld the dismissal of the appeal filed by the third party on behalf of the appellant-firm. The judgment reaffirmed the principle that a firm must act through proper representation in legal proceedings, and appeals must be filed in the name of the firm itself to be considered valid.