2011 (12) TMI 435 - AT - Central Excise

Change in cause title in appeal memorandum filed by the assessee way back in 2004 - assessee is now coming under the jurisdiction of Large Taxpayers Unit (LTU), Bangalore - Held that - The jurisdictions of the Central Excise Commissionerate keep changing due to administrative exigencies. Apparently, the unit was initially in the jurisdiction of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-II Commissionerate and subsequently came under the jurisdiction of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-III Commissionerate when the dispute was before the Hon ble High Court and presently has come under the jurisdiction of Commissioner of Central Excise, LTU. The exact dates on which the jurisdictional changes took place have not been furnished. The successor Commissioner no doubt steps into the shoes of the previous Commissioner for the purpose of jurisdiction. It has not been shown as to what prejudice has been caused to the present applicant and in what way they are handicapped in defending the case before the Tribunal. At any rate, this may not justify amendment of cause title, a document filed by the appellant at the instance of the present jurisdictional Commissionerate viz. Commissioner of Central Excise, LTU. Such an application could be entertained only at the instance of person who has filed the said document. - Decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Amendment in the cause title sought by the Commissioner of Central Excise, LTU Bangalore.
2. Jurisdictional changes and their impact on the appeal process.
3. Dismissal of the application for amendment in the cause title.

Analysis:
1. The case involved an application for amending the cause title in the appeal memorandum filed by the assessee in 2004. The Commissioner of Central Excise, LTU Bangalore sought the change due to the appellant-assessee falling under the jurisdiction of LTU. The jurisdictional changes occurred as the unit transitioned from Bangalore-II Commissionerate to Bangalore-III Commissionerate and eventually to LTU. However, the tribunal found the application not maintainable as it was not shown how the appellant was prejudiced or handicapped in defending the case due to the jurisdictional changes. The tribunal emphasized that such an amendment should only be entertained at the instance of the person who filed the document, which was not the case here.

2. The original order-in-original dated 11-10-2002 confirmed duty demand, interest, and penalties against the appellant. Subsequent appeals were made to the Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II) before reaching the Tribunal. The Tribunal disposed of the appeal in 2005, which was later challenged in the High Court. The High Court directed the Tribunal to reconsider the penalty issue. The jurisdictional changes from Bangalore-II to Bangalore-III Commissionerate and then to LTU were noted, with the successor Commissioner stepping into the shoes of the previous Commissioner for jurisdictional purposes. However, the lack of specific dates for these changes and the absence of demonstrated prejudice to the appellant led to the dismissal of the amendment application.

3. The tribunal's decision to dismiss the application for amending the cause title was based on the lack of shown prejudice to the present applicant and the absence of justification for the requested change. While acknowledging the administrative exigencies leading to jurisdictional changes, the tribunal emphasized that the amendment should be sought by the party who filed the document. As the application did not meet these criteria, it was deemed not maintainable and subsequently dismissed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues surrounding the amendment in the cause title, the impact of jurisdictional changes on the appeal process, and the tribunal's decision to dismiss the application based on the lack of demonstrated prejudice and justification for the requested change.