1993 (11) TMI 135 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Maintainability of the appeals filed by the company on behalf of individual appellants.
2. Applicability of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) in the context of Customs Act proceedings.
3. Definition and scope of "aggrieved person" under Section 128 and Section 129A of the Customs Act.
4. Requirement for individual appellants to file separate appeals.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Appeals Filed by the Company on Behalf of Individual Appellants:

The department representative raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeals filed by the company on behalf of individual appellants. The Collector in the impugned order stated that the company could not submit arguments regarding penalties imposed on individuals who had not filed separate appeals. The company filed an appeal against the confiscation and fine but included a prayer to set aside penalties on individuals without them being parties to the appeal. The Collector (Appeals) rejected this prayer, stating that the company was not authorized to file an appeal on behalf of the individuals. The Tribunal upheld this view, noting that the company's appeal was not a joint appeal and the individuals did not authorize the company to represent them.

2. Applicability of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) in the Context of Customs Act Proceedings:

The appellants' counsel argued that the appeal filed by the company should be considered as a composite appeal, citing Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, which allows for the substitution of parties in case of a bona fide mistake. However, the Tribunal noted that the proceedings under Sections 111 and 112(a) of the Customs Act are quasi-criminal in nature, and the imposition of penalties is penal. Therefore, the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, which apply to civil suits, are not applicable to these proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellants should have filed separate appeals as required under Section 128 of the Customs Act.

3. Definition and Scope of "Aggrieved Person" under Section 128 and Section 129A of the Customs Act:

The Tribunal examined the definition of "aggrieved person" under Section 128 of the Customs Act, which allows any person aggrieved by a decision or order to appeal to the Collector (Appeals). The Tribunal referred to the Delhi High Court's decision in Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CEGAT, which held that the term "aggrieved person" includes those whose rights are directly affected by the order. However, in this case, the Tribunal found that the company could not be considered an aggrieved party regarding the penalties imposed on its employees, as the employees themselves did not file appeals.

4. Requirement for Individual Appellants to File Separate Appeals:

The Tribunal emphasized that the individual appellants, who were directly affected by the penalties, should have filed separate appeals before the Collector (Appeals). The Tribunal noted that the individuals were aware of the proceedings and had the opportunity to file appeals but chose not to do so. The Tribunal concluded that the appeals filed by the company on behalf of the individuals were not maintainable, as the company was not authorized to represent them without their express consent.

Separate Judgment by P.C. Jain, Member (T):

Member P.C. Jain dissented from the majority view, arguing that the appeals by the individuals were maintainable. He cited the Delhi High Court's decision in Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CEGAT, which allowed entities not party to the original adjudication to file appeals if they were aggrieved. He also referenced the principle that appeals are a continuation of the original suit, allowing parties to be added at the appellate stage if necessary for a complete adjudication. He concluded that the lower appellate authority should have given the individuals an opportunity to join the proceedings and that their appeals should not be dismissed as non-maintainable.

Majority Order:

In terms of the majority order, the appeals were dismissed as not maintainable. The majority held that the company was not authorized to file appeals on behalf of the individuals and that the provisions of the CPC cited by the appellants' counsel did not apply to the quasi-criminal proceedings under the Customs Act.