2019 (12) TMI 226 - AT - Central Excise

Irregular availment of MODVAT Credit - recall of order - section 129 of Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - As the scope and jurisdiction of the Tribunal emanates from section 129 of Customs Act, 1962 for the for the limited purpose of deciding upon the legality and appropriateness of a confirmed demand, denial of refund or other penal consequences under Customs Act, 1962, Central Excise Act, 1944 and Finance Act, 1994, it is not within our competence, or expertise, to foray into awards and determination of such other statutory bodies. The provisions of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 are amply clear - With the expiry, or cessation, of an appellant, the appeal comes to an end. A miscellaneous application for alteration of cause title can be entertained only if an entity with potential for finding itself to be obligated by unfavourable future decision of the Tribunal seeks to substitute for an appellant on record to enable it to be heard before being saddled with detriment. Such a responsibility or obligation cannot be imposed by an existent appellant on to another entity whose involvement in the proceedings is not on record in the show cause notice. Hence, the application for incorporation of M/s Larsen Toubro Ltd in the appeal is dismissed. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Recall of order of the Tribunal dated 29th January 2018 in miscellaneous application no. 92052 of 2017.
2. Substitution of the appellant in appeal no. E/3036/2005-Mum.

Analysis:
1. The judgment involved two miscellaneous applications, one for the recall of the Tribunal's order and the other for the substitution of the appellant in the appeal. The facts leading to the proceedings included the irregular availment of credit by a company, proceedings against it, remand orders, and a rehabilitation scheme approved by the competent authority. The Tribunal initially allowed substitution of the appellant, but later recalled the order. The applicant sought to substitute another company as the appellant based on the rehabilitation scheme. The legal counsel referred to various legal provisions and court decisions to support the applications. The Tribunal highlighted the complexity introduced by the applicant and emphasized the special procedure for tax recovery through adjudication and appellate processes.

2. The Tribunal noted that the appellant unnecessarily complicated the appeal process under the Central Excise Act, 1944. It clarified the limited scope for substitution of an entity in appellate proceedings and the need for legal successors to protect their interests. The judgment emphasized that an entity not involved in the original appeal could not forcefully substitute as an appellant. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of the entity concerned initiating actions to protect its interests in the appeal. It also discussed the enforceability of confirmed demands and the purpose of pursuing appellate remedies. The judgment reiterated the jurisdictional limitations of the Tribunal and the specific provisions governing the cessation of an appeal with the expiry of an appellant.

3. The Tribunal addressed the ambiguity in the rehabilitation terms and emphasized that its jurisdiction was limited to deciding on the legality of confirmed demands under relevant statutes. It clarified that the Tribunal could not delve into matters falling under the purview of other statutory bodies. The judgment highlighted the provisions of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 regarding the cessation of an appeal with the appellant's expiry. It dismissed the application for the incorporation of a new entity as an appellant but allowed the substitution of the new name and style of the resultant company as per the rehabilitation scheme.

In conclusion, the judgment thoroughly analyzed the issues of recall of order and substitution of the appellant, emphasizing the legal complexities involved, the jurisdictional limitations of the Tribunal, and the specific provisions governing such proceedings. The decision provided a detailed explanation of the rationale behind dismissing one application and allowing the other based on the specific circumstances and legal framework involved.