2000 (5) TMI 258 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant is an aggrieved person under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act for filing an appeal before the Collector (Appeals)?

Analysis:
The appeal in question was filed by M/s. Rohit Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd. to determine if they qualify as an aggrieved person under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act to challenge an adjudication order. The appellant had purchased a centrifuge machine for pollution control, paying a higher excise duty rate initially. Despite being eligible for a lower duty rate as per a notification, the refund claim was rejected due to a missing certificate. The appellant argued that as the duty incidence was borne by them, they had a direct interest in the refund, making them an aggrieved person. Citing legal precedents, the appellant contended that the phrase 'person aggrieved' is broader than 'party aggrieved,' allowing third parties with a direct interest to challenge orders.

The appellant's representative emphasized that the principle of unjust enrichment applied to the supplier, who did not appeal, and buyers could seek refunds if they had not passed on the duty incidence. Referring to relevant case laws, the appellant argued that they had locus standi as a person aggrieved under Section 35 of the Act. The legal representative highlighted the broader interpretation of 'person aggrieved' by courts in similar cases, asserting that the appellant had the right to challenge the adjudication order as they bore the duty burden and had a direct interest in the matter.

In response, the Departmental Representative contended that the appellant, not the original claimant, could not be considered an aggrieved person. The Department argued that buyers seeking refunds under Section 11B did not have the right to appeal directly against rejected claims not filed by them. The Department emphasized that the appellant's attempt to broaden the scope of appeal was unwarranted, suggesting that filing an appeal was an indirect way to revive a time-barred refund claim.

Upon evaluating both arguments, the Tribunal referred to legal definitions of 'aggrieved person,' emphasizing the requirement of a legal grievance directly affecting pecuniary or proprietary rights. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal clarified that a person must suffer a legal grievance to be considered aggrieved. The Tribunal highlighted the Supreme Court's stance on 'person aggrieved,' requiring a direct legal interest in goods involved in adjudication to establish locus standi. In this case, the Tribunal found that the appellant had not suffered a legal injury due to the adjudication order, as their legal right to claim excess duty from the supplier remained unaffected. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Collector (Appeals)' decision, stating that the appellant lacked the right to dispute the Assistant Collector's order, leading to the rejection of the appeal.