9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (4) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Excise and Customs, Bombay. 3. The appeal relates to the metal name plates manufactured by M/s Excel Process Pvt. Ltd., Bombay. This company supplied the said name plates to another company viz. M/s Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. The claim of the manufacturers i.e. M/s Excel Process Pvt. Ltd. before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise had been that the name plates manufactured by them were parts/accessories of Motor Vehicles and as such they were liable to be classified under Tariff Item 34A C.E.T. and that by virtue of Notification No. 99/71-C.E., dated 29-5-1971 were exempt from the payment of the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon. The claim of the appellants was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and argued on the point as follows : The applicants, namely, M/s. Mahindra Mahindra Ltd., are merely pursuing the stand taken by the manufacturers, namely, M/s Excel Process Pvt. Ltd. by filing a revision application. Section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 as it stood at the relevant time provides that the Central Government may on the application of any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under the Act or the rules made thereunder by any Central Excise Officer or by the Central Board of Excise and Customs and from which no appeal lies, reverse or modify any decision or order (vide sub-section 1 of that section). Further, the Central Government may, of its own motion or otherwise, call for and examine the rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey should be treated as aggrieved persons. Further, there is nothing in the scheme of the Act to suggest that the term person aggrieved is to be read as being restricted to the manufacturer or the assessee or the person against whom the order is passed. The Hon ble Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Bar Council of Maharashtra v. Dabholkar reported in A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 2092 had considered the meaning of the term person aggrieved and held that term should be interpreted with reference to the purpose and provisions of the statute. The applicants also rely on another judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharak Singh v. State of U.P. (AIR 1976 S.C. 2602). In case it is held that the present applicants have no locus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn the definition of the phrase aggrieved person is by James, L.J. in Re : Sidebotham : Ex. P. Sidebotham (1880) 14 Ch. D. 458. It was observed that the words person aggrieved in Section 71 of the Bankruptcy Act of 1869 meant : Not really a person who is disappointed of a benefit which he might have received if some order had been made. A `person aggrieved must be a man who had suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which had wrongfully deprived him of something, or wrongfully refused him of something or wrongfully affected his title of something. The important thing which may be noted in this definition is that the person filing an appeal must have legal grievance against the decision w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use him something or affect his title to something. Further, it is also evident from the decision given by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case Bar Council of Maharashtra v. Dabholkar referred to above by the advocate of M/s Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. that the term aggrieved person should be interpreted with regard to the purpose and provisions of the statute. The purpose of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 is to consolidate and amend the law relating to central excise duties on goods manufactured or produced in India and to Salt. Under Section 3 read with Section 2(f) of the Act, the duty of excise is leviable on the manufacture and production of goods as specified in the first schedule to the Act; hence dutiability of a product for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct tax, the ultimate burden would be on the consumer but that does not mean that every consumer of the goods in issue can be treated as an aggrieved person for filing his claim either before the Central Excise authorities or the government or, as the case may be, the Tribunal. In any case, M/s Mahindra Mahindra are not the affected consumers in this case. They are only an intermediary. Whatever tax they pay in the form of higher price of the name plates, they pass on to their customers of motor vehicles. In view of the purposes and the provisions of the Act, we hold that in this case, the aggrieved persons are the manufacturers, namely, M/s Excel Process Pvt. Ltd. and as such M/s Mahindra Mahindra Ltd., the purchasers of the said goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
