2011 (4) TMI 488 - AT - Central Excise

Locus standi - Refund Claim - Provisions of Section 11B - Aggrieved person - The refund claim of M/s.CEAT Ltd. was rejected. Therefore, M/s.CEAT Ltd. filed an appeal against the said order and an appeal was also filed by the appellant against the rejection of the refund claim of M/s.CEAT Ltd. The lower appellate authority has rejected the appeal of the appellant holding that the appellant has no locus standi to file the present appeal as the appellant cannot be held to an aggrieved person in this case as refund claim has not been filed by them. - Held that - the show-cause notice has been issued to the appellant earlier. Therefore, the observation of the lower appellate authority that the appellants have no locus standi to file the appeal is totally incorrect - appeal allowed and matter remanded back to to the original adjudicating authority to decide the issue.

Summary

Issues:
- Locus standi of the appellant to file an appeal against the rejection of a refund claim.

Analysis:
1. The appellants contested an order rejecting their appeal due to purported lack of locus standi. The case involved the sale of a plant for manufacturing goods to the appellants, who continued production for the original owner. A dispute arose regarding the reversal of Modvat credit for goods intended for export, leading to a rejected refund claim by the original owner, M/s.CEAT Ltd.

2. The lower appellate authority held that the appellant lacked standing to appeal as they had not filed the refund claim themselves. However, the appellant's advocate argued that the show-cause notice directed to both M/s.CEAT Ltd. and the appellant established the appellant's aggrieved status and right to appeal.

3. Upon review, the Tribunal found that the show-cause notice indeed included the appellant, contradicting the lower authority's ruling. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, recognizing the appellant's locus standi and remanding the matter back to the original adjudicating authority for further consideration.

4. Additionally, it was noted that M/s.CEAT Ltd. had also appealed the rejection of their refund claim, with the Tribunal allowing their appeal and remanding the matter to the original adjudicating authority. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision to remand the appellant's case aligned with the previous order regarding M/s.CEAT Ltd., ensuring consistency in the adjudication process.