2019 (6) TMI 1322 - AT - Service Tax

Jurisdiction - prayer for impleadment of Principal Commissioner/Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Mumbai as a respondent by taking resort to the provisions Rule 12(1) and Rule 17 of the Customs, Excise, Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure Rules), 1982 - HELD THAT - The Additional Director General has been invested with the power of the Commissioner to be exercised throughout the territory of India. It is for this reason that the Corrigendum dated 20 July 2016 to the show cause notice was issued investing the powers of the adjudicating authority to the Additional Director General and it is the Additional Director General who has passed the impugned order. It cannot, therefore be urged that the Additional Director General has wrongly been impleaded as a respondent in the appeals. One practical difficulty has, however, been expressed by the learned Representative of the Department namely, that the Additional Director General may not have enough resources or manpower to contest the appeals - This in our opinion is not a good ground for impleading either one or all the 27 jurisdictional Commissioners who prior to the issue of the notification were vested with the power to adjudicate. There is, therefore, no necessity of impleading the Principal Commissioner, CGST, Mumbai as a respondent in the appeal. Application dismissed.

Issues:
1. Impleadment of Principal Commissioner/Commissioner as a respondent in an appeal.
2. Interpretation of Rule 12 of the Customs, Excise, Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure Rules), 1982.
3. Definition of Central Excise Officer under the Central Excise Act, 1944.
4. Powers invested in Officers of the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence.

Issue 1: Impleadment of Principal Commissioner/Commissioner as a respondent in an appeal:
The Additional Director General filed an application seeking the impleadment of the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Mumbai as a respondent in an appeal. The Department's representative argued in favor of impleading the Commissioner concerned as a respondent, as per Rule 12 of the Rules. However, the appellant opposed this, stating that the Additional Director General, who passed the impugned order, should suffice as the respondent. The Tribunal analyzed Rule 12, which mandates that in an appeal, the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner concerned must be made a respondent.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Rule 12 of the Customs, Excise, Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure Rules), 1982:
Rule 12 of the Rules stipulates that in an appeal, the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner concerned must be made a respondent. The Tribunal examined the provisions of Rule 12 and clarified that the Commissioner concerned, who adjudicated the Show Cause Notices, should be impleaded as a respondent. It was emphasized that the Principal Commissioner, CGST, Mumbai need not be impleaded as a respondent if the Commissioner concerned had already adjudicated the matter.

Issue 3: Definition of Central Excise Officer under the Central Excise Act, 1944:
The Central Excise Act defines a Central Excise Officer to include various officials, including those invested by the Central Board of Excise and Customs with the powers of Central Excise Officers. The Act provides a broad definition to encompass individuals authorized by the Board to exercise such powers.

Issue 4: Powers invested in Officers of the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence:
The Tribunal highlighted a notification appointing certain Officers of the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence as Central Excise Officers, thereby empowering them to exercise the powers of a Commissioner throughout India. This notification clarified the authority vested in the Additional Director General to act as an adjudicating authority, justifying the impleadment of the Additional Director General as a respondent in the appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the application for impleading the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner, CGST, Mumbai as a respondent, as the Additional Director General, who passed the impugned order, sufficed as the respondent in accordance with Rule 12 of the Rules. The judgment clarified the roles and responsibilities of the concerned officers and emphasized the proper interpretation of legal provisions governing the impleadment of parties in appeals.

← Previous Next →