2013 (12) TMI 1298 - AT - Customs

Change of cause title - Appeal filed against main Respondent only - Held that - by filing this application the appellants have chosen a route to implead the respondents by this application as respondents to their main appeal which is not permissible in law as they have not filed any appeal against the intended respondents. Moreover, they have filed the main appeal against the main appellant, i.e., M/s. Chokhani Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd., in April, 2008 and they have made this application in November, 2010 - no appeal has been filed against the intended respondents, which are intended to be impleaded as respondents - change of cause title is not permissible - Following decision of CCE, Mangalore v. L.P. Shenoy 2003 (2) TMI 138 - CEGAT, BANGALORE - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Application to amend cause title to include multiple importers/transfers as respondents in the appeal.

Analysis:
The Revenue filed a miscellaneous application seeking to amend the cause title of their appeal to include the names of 37 importers/transfers as respondents. The Commissioner (AR) representing the Revenue explained that due to an inadvertent mistake, the appeal was initially filed only against the main respondent. The Revenue relied on various case laws to support their application, emphasizing the need to include all intended respondents. However, one of the respondents, Shri Ramgopal Textile Ltd., through their counsel, argued against the maintainability of the application based on precedents like CCE, Mangalore v. L.P. Shenoy and CCE, Chennai v. Arihant Micro Computers Pvt. Ltd.

Upon hearing both parties and considering the case laws presented, the Tribunal observed that the Revenue's application to implead the additional respondents was not legally permissible. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had not filed any appeal against the intended respondents, and the application was made after a significant delay from the initial filing of the main appeal against the main appellant. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from the cited precedents where composite appeals were filed against all respondents. The Tribunal specifically referenced the case of L.P. Shenoy, where it was established that changing the cause title at a later stage was not acceptable.

Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the Revenue's application lacked merit and was rejected. The decision was made based on the legal principles governing the impleadment of respondents in appeals and the specific circumstances of the case.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved, the arguments presented by the parties, the relevant legal precedents cited, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the final decision to reject the Revenue's application.