1993 (8) TMI 181

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ate Government promulgated U.P. State Sugar Undertaking (Acquisition) Ordinance and thereafter all the property and assets of the respondent s Mill at Maholi were taken over by the State Government by enforcing the provisions of the U.P. Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971. The respondent s factory had been vested to U.P. State Sugar Corporation Limited who have been running the affairs of the Mill from 28-10-1984 under the name U.P. State Sugar Corporation Limited. Since the acquisition proceedings under U.P. Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Ordinance, 1984 were upheld by the Allahabad High Court and the U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. is a successor-in-interest and has taken over the respondent s Mills as a running concern, U.P. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was acquired as long as back in 1984, application filed by the respondents is beyond time and without valid reason. He said that provisions of Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 are not applicable to the facts of this case. 3. Smt. Shanti Sundaram appearing for the appellant/Department submitted that the department is not interested in substituting U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd., as respondent since proceedings were not pending on the date of taking over nor provisions of Rule 22 CEGAT (Procedure) Rules are applicable since the respondent is very much in existence. 4. On a careful consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of the respective sides, we find that there is a lot of force in the arguments advanced on behalf .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f law. We are not concerned with that question as we are confined to decide the issue whether substitution application under Rule 22 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules is permissible in the facts and circumstances of the case. We are of the view that application for substitution is not maintainable since the respondent is very much in existence. In the view we have taken, miscellaneous applications filed by the respondent M/s. Laxmiji Sugar Mills Co. (P) Ltd. are hereby rejected. Consequently, the purported Cross-Objections filed by the U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. are dismissed as not maintainable since U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd., does not have locus standi to file the appeal or the Cross-Objection. The appeals are posted for heari .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X