1995 (2) TMI 234 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the appeal filed by the appellants.
2. Interpretation of "aggrieved person" in the context of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, CALCUTTA involved the issue of the maintainability of an appeal filed by the appellants. The case revolved around the appellants supplying a consignment to M/s. Hindusthan Motors, which did not receive the original Gate Pass due to loss by the driver. As a result, M/s. Hindusthan Motors refused to pay the Central Excise duty to the appellants. The appellants sought credit on a certified copy of the original Gate Pass, but the Superintendent of Central Excise denied the request based on a Trade Notice. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. The Junior Departmental Representative argued that the appellants were not "aggrieved persons" and lacked locus standi to file the appeal. The J.D.R. cited a judgment involving Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. to support this position.

The Tribunal analyzed the definition of "aggrieved person" in the context of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The J.D.R. contended that the appellants, as consignors, were not directly affected by the denial of MODVAT Credit to the consignee, M/s. Hindusthan Motors. Referring to the Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. case, the J.D.R. argued that only the manufacturers, in this case, M/s. Excel Process Pvt. Ltd., could be considered aggrieved persons. The Tribunal examined various legal definitions of "aggrieved person" and emphasized that a legal grievance must be suffered for one to be considered aggrieved. The purpose of the Act was highlighted to determine the liability for excise duty, which primarily falls on manufacturers or producers, not purchasers like the appellants. The Tribunal, therefore, agreed with the J.D.R. that the appellants lacked locus standi and were not aggrieved persons in this scenario.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appeal filed by the appellants on the grounds of lack of maintainability as they were not considered "aggrieved persons" under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The decision was based on the interpretation of relevant legal principles and the specific circumstances of the case, aligning with the precedent set in the Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. case. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a direct legal grievance to establish aggrieved status, which was absent in the appellants' situation.