2011 (8) TMI 986 - AT - Central Excise

Impleading as party - Held that - As far as provisions of Section 35B is concerned, the Revenue is the only party in this case and the aggrieved party or person can only appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals). In the appeal memorandum, in form EA3, Revenue has impleaded M/s. Rajan Prints as respondent and it is M/s. Rajan Prints to whom the notices have been sent by the Tribunal - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Impleading as a party in an appeal for recovery of past liabilities.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a miscellaneous application filed by an applicant seeking to be impleaded as a party in an appeal filed by the Revenue for the recovery of past liabilities. The applicant's counsel argued that in case the appeal is allowed, the Revenue may seek recovery from the applicant. Reference was made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Northern Plastics Limited v. Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Company Limited, emphasizing that the applicant would be a party aggrieved. However, the Tribunal found that the Revenue had filed the appeal against a specific order, and as per the provisions of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, only the Revenue could be a party in this case. The Tribunal noted that the application to implead the applicant lacked merit.

The Tribunal further discussed the legal principle that the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) derives its jurisdiction and powers solely from the statute creating it. Referring to the provisions of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Tribunal highlighted that a person or party aggrieved can only be a respondent or appellant. In this case, since the applicant was not joined as a respondent, the Tribunal concluded that there was no merit in the application filed by the applicant. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the specific provisions of the Central Excise Act and the nature of the appeal filed by the Revenue. The judgment emphasized that the applicant could not be impleaded as a party in the appeal for recovery of past liabilities due to the statutory framework governing such matters. The dismissal of the application was in line with the legal principles outlined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the statutory provisions governing the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.