2024 (3) TMI 463 - AT - Customs

Newly impleaded respondent - Impleading of the Jurisdictional Commissioner as another respondent alongwith Commissioner (Adjudication) - However, it was mentioned that the CESTAT Procedure Rules do not permit such impleadment. - HELD THAT - Bare perusal of the aforesaid Rule 3 reveals that there is no curtailment as far as number of defendants/respondents to a particular lis are concerned. No doubt in Rule 12 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner is mentioned in singular but the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner concerned is also mentioned. Principal Commissioner of Commissionerate issuing show cause notice and Commissioner (adjudication) since are dealing with matter arising out of same transactions/series of act i.e. the same SCN, both are the concerned Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. Hence, we do not find any reason to deny impleadment of Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner of jurisdictional Commissionerate (which issued show cause notice) as another respondent alongwith Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner (Adjudication). The notification dated 31st March, 2022, as relied upon by respondent-assessee, it is observed that to have been for the purpose of adjudication, in case of multiple jurisdictions. We don t find any restriction for impleading more than one respondent in the appeals filed. As a result, the request of the Department is hereby allowed. Learned DR is required to file amended cause title and also to get the notice of hearing served on the newly impleaded respondent.

Summary

Issues involved: Impleadment of jurisdictional Commissioner as a respondent in an appeal before CESTAT.

Summary:
The issue in this case revolved around the request made by the department to implead the jurisdictional Commissioner as another respondent in addition to the Commissioner (Adjudication) in an appeal before CESTAT. The appellant did not object to the request but pointed out that CESTAT Procedure Rules do not permit such impleadment.

Upon perusal of CESTAT Procedure Rules, it was found that Rule 12 specifies that the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner concerned should be made the respondent in an appeal. The legislative intent behind the rule was to make the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner, who are concerned with the issue, as the relevant party to the appeal. The notifications clarifying the procedure cannot override the legislative intent of the parent statute.

Additionally, reference was made to section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, which recognizes the Jurisdictional Commissionerate and the Principal/Chief Commissioner thereof to have jurisdiction over the adjudicating authority. It was argued that there is no curtailment on the number of defendants/respondents in a particular case, and both the Principal Commissioner of the Commissionerate issuing the show cause notice and the Commissioner (Adjudication) are concerned parties in the appeal.

Furthermore, a circular/instruction dated October 20, 2016, highlighted the procedure for filing appeals against Orders-in-Original passed by ADGs (Adjudication). The notification dated March 31, 2022, did not restrict the impleading of more than one respondent in appeals filed before CESTAT.

In conclusion, the request of the department to implead the jurisdictional Commissioner as another respondent was allowed. The learned DR was directed to file an amended cause title and serve the notice of hearing on the newly impleaded respondent. The matter was scheduled for listing on March 19, 2024.