2007 (11) TMI 53 - AT - Central Excise

In instant case appellant is not a legally aggrieved person so does not derive any legal rights under C.E. law to file an appeal against order passed by authorities demanding duty from its assessee which is ONGC.

Summary

Issues:
- Locus standi of the present appellant to file an appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act.
- Interpretation of the phrase "person aggrieved" under the Central Excise Law.
- Whether the present appellant has legal standing to challenge an order passed by the Revenue authorities demanding duty from its assessee.
- Application of Section 12B of the Central Excise Act in determining legal rights of the appellant.
- Impact of granting leave to file appeal on the tax administration and economic health of the nation.

Analysis:

1. Locus Standi of Present Appellant: The Tribunal had earlier concluded that the present appellant lacked locus standi to file an appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) against ONGC. This decision was based on the fact that the appellant was not a party in the proceedings before the authorities below.

2. Interpretation of "Person Aggrieved": The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay emphasized the need for the appellant to seek leave from the Tribunal to file an appeal, as per the law laid down by the Apex Court. The appellant cited various judgments to support the contention that a person aggrieved, even if not a party to the proceeding, can file an appeal.

3. Legal Standing of Present Appellant: The Revenue authorities argued that the present appellant had no right to appeal against the Departmental order directed at its assessee, ONGC. They contended that the appellant was not recognized under the Central Excise law, had no liabilities or rights, and thus lacked locus standi.

4. Application of Section 12B: The appellant claimed to be an "aggrieved person" as the duty was wrongly levied on goods bought from ONGC. However, the Tribunal clarified that under the law, the manufacturer is primarily responsible for duty payment, and the appellant, not being an assessee, had no legal rights or obligations.

5. Impact of Granting Leave: Granting leave to file an appeal to the appellant was deemed detrimental to the tax administration and economic health of the nation. Allowing individuals not recognized under the Central Excise law to challenge Revenue decisions would disrupt revenue collection and fiscal administration.

6. Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the appellant did not have legal standing to file an appeal as they were not recognized under the law and did not suffer any legal grievance. The judgments cited by the appellant did not support their claim, and granting leave would set a precedent detrimental to tax administration. The appeal was disposed of without delving into the merits of the matter.