9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant, ONGC by letter dated 24-11-99 amended the release order incorporating therein clauses relating to payment of excise duty on the scrap. ONGC insisted that the appellant should fulfil all the conditions before taking delivery of the material. The appellant took the stand that no excise duty was leviable on the waste and scrap, whereupon ONGC directed the appellant to execute a bond to indemnify them against any demand of excise duty that might be raised by the department. A bank guarantee for Rs. 8 lakhs was accordingly furnished by the appellant in favour of ONGC and the same was amended from time to time to increase the amount which ultimately stood at Rs. 8,44,500/-. 2. The Department by show cause notice dated 23-5-2000 raised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is one of the judgments referred to in I.D.L. Chemicals (supra). Counsel has also relied on the Madras High Court's decision in Tamil Nadu Newsprint Papers Ltd. v. Union of India [1993 (66) E.L.T. 562 (Mad.)]. 4. The SDR has hotly contested the plea that the appellant is an 'aggrieved person' under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act. No show cause notice was issued to the appellant by the department for any purpose whatsoever, nor was any order passed against the appellant by the original authority or the first appellate authority. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals), passed against ONGC, has not burdened the appellant with any duty, penalty or other liability. In the circumstances, there could not be any grievance for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f duty against ONGC and imposed a penalty on them. The first appellate authority upheld the decision of the original authority in an appeal preferred by ONGC. It is the order of the first appellate authority that has been challenged before the Tribunal by the appellant. The respondent in this appeal is the Commissioner of Central Excise who represents the Department. The appellant has no case that it has any grievance against the department which has not burdened the appellant with duty, penalty or any other liability in relation to the goods under the Central Excise Act. Had the department burdened it with any such liability, the appellant would have been a party to the adjudication proceedings. The appellant was, admittedly, not party to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icating authority, it must be shown by the person claiming to be 'aggrieved' that he, being a third party, had a direct legal interest in the goods involved in the adjudication process. After carefully considering the facts of the instant case, we find that the appellant had no direct legal interest in the goods (scrap) at the relevant stage. The adjudication was on the question whether ONGC was liable to pay Central Excise duty on the goods under the Act at the time of its clearance. The appellant had acquired no legal interest in the goods at that stage. Its interest, if any, was only contractual by reason of its agreement with ONGC. Hence the appellant cannot be considered to be covered by the exception laid down by the Apex Court in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat M/s. Jaiswal Engg. Works (P) Ltd. were not 'persons aggrieved' and hence had no right to file appeal against the decision taken by the adjudicating authority against TELCO. A similar view was taken by the Tribunal with reference to Section 129A of the Customs Act in the case of Hindustan Photo Films. In the case of Cyma Industries (supra), it was held by the Tribunal that any person other than the one who paid duty had no locus standi to claim refund of the duty under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. 7. The Counsel has heavily relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Assistant General Manager, Central Bank of India Others v. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation for the City of Ahmedabad Others (supra) in which it was held th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stics, which is squarely on the point. 8. In I.D.L. Chemicals (supra), the Supreme Court was considering the question whether the appellants had locus standi to file Writ Petition in the High Court against an order of demand of duty raised on Steel Authority of India Ltd. (buyer of goods manufactured and supplied by the appellants). The Apex Court held that the appellants were entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The scope of locus standi under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is much wider than that under statutory provisions. It has been held so by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Northern Plastics (supra) itself. The relevant part of the judgment in Northern Plastics is extracted below :- "It ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
