2009 (1) TMI 236 - AT - Central Excise

Aggrieved Party Ductile Iron Pipes and Castings Manufacturers Association Locus Standi Held that - A careful consideration of the above case laws would indicate that the applicant in the present case cannot be said to be an aggrieved party at this stage. - The matter referred to the Larger Bench is a legal question. No doubt, it may have some repercussion in respect of domestic manufacturers. - the members of the applicant after all, are competitors to the appellant. - In the light of the Apex Court s decision cited, we hold that the applicant cannot be an aggrieved party. It should also be noted that the Tribunal has consistently held that only an assessee who is party to the proceedings before the authority is an aggrieved party and not others, even if they are affected in some way or other by a decision Larger Bench

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Project Import benefit under the Project Import Regulations, 1986, for 'Drinking Water Supply projects for supply of water for human or animal consumption' is restricted to equipment needed for water treatment plants only.
2. The locus standi of the Ductile Iron Pipes and Castings Manufacturers' Association to intervene in the proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Scope of Project Import Benefit:
The core issue referred to the Larger Bench was whether the Project Import benefit under the Project Import Regulations, 1986, specifically for 'Drinking Water Supply projects for supply of water for human or animal consumption,' should be limited to equipment necessary for water treatment plants and exclude projects for bringing water from the source to the treatment plant and distribution of treated water. The Bangalore Bench of CESTAT disagreed with the Mumbai Bench's decision in the Pratibha Industries Ltd. case, which favored the revenue, leading to the referral of the issue to the Larger Bench.

2. Locus Standi of the Applicant:
The Ductile Iron Pipes and Castings Manufacturers' Association sought intervention, arguing that the decision would directly affect their members, who are domestic manufacturers. They cited several precedents to support their claim of being a 'proper party,' emphasizing that their presence would facilitate a complete and final decision on the matter. They highlighted potential discrimination against their members under Article 14 of the Constitution of India if not allowed to intervene.

Applicant's Arguments:
- The applicant referenced multiple cases where intervention was allowed, including Kamakhya Steels (P) Ltd. v. CCE and others.
- They cited the Supreme Court's distinction between 'necessary' and 'proper' parties in Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Addl. Member, Board of Revenue, and other cases, arguing that their intervention would aid in settling all questions involved in the controversy.
- They also pointed out that their members would face economic hardship if the project import benefit was granted to the appellant, which could be discriminatory.

Appellant's Counter-Arguments:
- The appellant argued that the applicant had no locus standi, referencing Pankaj Steel Corpn. v. CCE and other cases where only an assessee could challenge an order.
- They contended that the applicant being competitors had no legal ground to intervene, and economic difficulty was not a valid ground for legal disputes.
- They also noted that pending appeals in higher courts did not justify the applicant's intervention in the current proceedings.

Tribunal's Decision:
- The Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's concerns but emphasized that the applicant was not an 'aggrieved party' as defined by legal standards since their rights had not been adversely affected at this stage.
- Citing various precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant, being competitors, did not qualify as a proper party to the proceedings.
- The Tribunal rejected the Miscellaneous Application for intervention but allowed the applicant's Senior Counsel to make legal submissions before the Larger Bench.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's decision underscored the importance of defining the scope of 'aggrieved parties' and 'proper parties' in legal proceedings, ultimately rejecting the intervention application while allowing the applicant's counsel to participate in legal arguments. This judgment highlights the nuanced considerations in determining party status in complex legal disputes involving regulatory benefits and industry interests.