1989 (10) TMI 158 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Application for impleading as second appellant under Rule 41 of CEGAT Procedure Rules.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a miscellaneous application filed by M/s Hindustan Polymers seeking to be added as the second appellant in an appeal regarding excise duty refund. The applicant contended that they are a necessary party as they paid the duty under a mistake of law and are entitled to the refund. The Tribunal had to determine whether the applicant could be impleaded as the second appellant under Rule 41 of the CEGAT Procedure Rules and Section 151 of CPC. The applicant relied on a Supreme Court decision where a similar party was allowed to intervene in a case based on peculiar facts and circumstances.

The Tribunal considered the facts of the case and compared them to the precedent cited by the applicant. In the previous case, the party seeking intervention had directly paid the duty and was facing potential financial loss. However, in the current case, the applicant had not availed proforma credit or faced a direct dispute with the appellant. The Tribunal noted that the refund claim was between the Steel Authority of India and the department, and the presence of the applicant was not crucial for deciding the refund issue. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant was not a necessary party for the complete adjudication of the matter and dismissed the application.

The Tribunal also referenced a decision by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, emphasizing that parties seeking judicial redress must act bona fide for the cause of justice and not for personal gain. In this case, the Tribunal found that the applicant's motive for seeking impleadment was for personal gain or private profit, which was not a valid ground for impleading them as a party. The Tribunal held that the applicant's presence was not essential for determining the refund issue, and their application lacked merit. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application for impleading the applicant as the second appellant in the appeal regarding excise duty refund.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the Tribunal's reasoning behind dismissing the application for impleading the applicant as the second appellant, focusing on the lack of necessity for the applicant's presence in the case and their motives for seeking intervention.