1993 (8) TMI 181 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for substitution under Rule 22 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.
2. Validity of the application for substitution filed by the respondents.
3. Interpretation of Rule 22 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.
4. Applicability of Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in the case.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around three miscellaneous applications filed by the respondents, seeking to substitute U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd., as the respondent in place of M/s. Laxmiji Sugar Mills Co. (P) Ltd. The respondents argued that the State Government had taken over the assets of the respondent's mill, and therefore, U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. should be substituted as the respondent. They relied on the U.P. Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Ordinance, 1984, and the U.P. Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971, to support their contention. The respondents claimed that the acquisition was upheld by the Allahabad High Court, making U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. the successor-in-interest. They cited Rule 22 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, and Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, in their support.

The opposing party, representing U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd., contested the substitution, arguing that the conditions for substitution under Rule 22 were not met. They highlighted that the respondent company was still in existence and had not been wound up or taken over entirely by U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. They emphasized that the application for substitution should have been filed within 60 days of the event, which was not the case here. The applicability of Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, was also challenged by the opposing party.

The appellant/Department expressed disinterest in substituting U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. as the respondent, stating that the proceedings were not pending at the time of the takeover. They argued that Rule 22 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules did not apply since the respondent was still in existence.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found merit in the arguments presented by U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. The Tribunal concluded that the application for substitution was not maintainable under Rule 22 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules as the respondent company was still in existence. The Tribunal emphasized that the question of liability transfer had not arisen in this case and would be addressed by relevant laws if necessary in the future. Therefore, the miscellaneous applications for substitution were rejected, and the Cross-Objections filed by U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. were dismissed for lack of locus standi. The appeals were scheduled for further hearing, with notices directed only to Laxmiji Sugar Mills Co. (P) Ltd., at their specified address.