2013 (6) TMI 365 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) - Co-applicants - Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 31.3.2010 has rejected the present appeal on the ground of not maintainability by observing that vide order in appeal dated 31.3.2010 he has already set aside the impugned order while allowing the appeal of M/s Ravindra Kumar Agarwal and as such, inasmuch as the impugned order is already set aside by him and has become non-est, he has rejected the present appeal as not maintainable. Held that - The applicant in the Miscellaneous Application filed by Asha Agarwal is given liberty to air her grievances before Commissioner (Appeals) by way of filing application before Commissioner (Appeals). Appellate authority shall also examine the facts while deciding the miscellaneous application that whether any separate appeal was filed against the order in appeal by Asha Agarwal. The appeal was required to be filed by her when order was issued to Sarita Agarwal separately. - matter restored back to commissioner (Appeals)

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Miscellaneous application for intervention and stay petitions against rejection of appeal as not maintainable.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi involved a miscellaneous application filed by Mrs. Asha Agarwal seeking intervention in a matter, along with stay petitions filed by two other appellants against the rejection of their appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) on grounds of non-maintainability. The Deputy Commissioner had initially rejected a request by Smt. Asha Agarwal for an amendment in the registration certificate. Three appeals were subsequently filed against this decision, one by Shri Ravindra & Co. and the other two by Smt. Sarita Agarwal and Shri Ravindra Kumar Agarwal. Notably, no appeal was directly filed in the name of Smt. Asha Agarwal, although it was claimed that the appeal by Ravindra & Co. was actually filed by her, which was not substantiated with supporting documents.

The Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the appeal on the basis of non-maintainability, citing a previous order where the impugned order had been set aside in another appeal. The Tribunal found this route of dismissal to be against the principles of natural justice, as all three appeals arising from the same original order were disposed of on the same day. Without delving into the case's merits, the Tribunal set aside the order of non-maintainability and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on the merits, emphasizing that the Revenue cannot benefit from its own errors.

Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the earlier order in favor of the assessee had not been challenged and therefore did not require interference. It was highlighted that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have decided all related matters together, which was not done initially. The Tribunal granted liberty to Asha Agarwal to present her case before the Commissioner (Appeals) and instructed the appellate authority to examine whether a separate appeal was filed by her against the earlier order, which had implications for her despite the claim that the appeal by Ravindra & Co. was on her behalf. The miscellaneous application, appeals, and stay petitions were disposed of accordingly.