2011 (3) TMI 362 - HC - Central Excise

Import licence - Remission of duty - Rule 21 of Central Excise Rule - Application for rectification of mistakes - Assuming that the Merchant Exporter had executed a bond undertaking to pay the duty on completion of the export obligations he would not step into the shoes of a manufacturer under the Act for all purposes - It is well settled that an appeal is a statutory remedy provided to an aggrieved person - Merely because he executed a bond undertaking to pay the duty on behalf of the manufacturer he would not step into his shoes so far as exercising the rights under the Act is concerned - But the appellant has no independent right to prefer a statutory appeal without the consent or concurrence of the manufacturer - Decided against the assessee

Summary

Issues: Appeal challenging Tribunal's order on locus standi for appeal.

Analysis:
The appellant, a partnership firm with a loan license to manufacture medicines, used another company's facility for export. Due to issues with import license, goods had to be returned, leading to expiry. The appellant sought destruction of goods and remission of duty, but the request was rejected. Appeals were made at various levels, culminating in the Tribunal dismissing the appeal on grounds of the appellant not being a manufacturer and hence lacking locus standi.

The substantial questions of law considered by the Court included whether the Tribunal erred in determining the appellant's status as a manufacturer without evidence, whether the Tribunal was correct in deciding on merits without framed issues, and whether the appellant had the right to appeal independently of the manufacturer. The appellant argued that as a loan licensee and bond executor, they were entitled to remission of duty and thus had the right to appeal.

The Court held that under the Act, the duty payment responsibility lies with the manufacturer. While a merchant exporter may undertake duty payment obligations, they do not assume the manufacturer's role entirely. The Court emphasized that an appeal is a statutory remedy for an aggrieved party and must be pursued within statutory boundaries. As the appellant was not directly liable to pay excise duty and had no independent right to appeal without the manufacturer's consent, the Tribunal's decision was upheld, favoring the revenue and dismissing the appeal.