9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2006) was preferred by the Revenue, i.e., the Central Excise Department aggrieved by an order of the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ('CESTAT') dated 18.07.2005. This Court had while entertaining the appeal formulated the following questions of law: - "1. Whether the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I had territorial jurisdiction to issue a show cause notice to M/s. Florida Electrical Industries Limited? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law, in concluding that duty demand against M/s. Modern Industrial Enterprises could not be confirmed since it was not possible to arrive at the value of clearances separately between M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dance with the statute i.e. Section 35G inasmuch as it was not impleaded. It is argued on behalf of the appellant by Mr. Balbir Singh, learned senior counsel, that the letter of Section 35G and the procedure prescribed for it in the CESTAT Rules applicable for such appeals necessitated the impleadment of each party and the preferring of a separate appeal in case of a common order on multiple appeals. In the present case, when the appeal was lodged in the first instance, only M/s Modern Industrial Enterprises was impleaded. Later, the Revenue sought to change the memo of parties - without any application to that effect. In the circumstances, it could not be said that a decision was rendered in properly instituted proceedings by way of an app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laid out appeal. 5. Lastly, it was contended that the issue is not merely academic but rather one of substance because in the event the CESTAT were to affirm the Commissioner's findings, the adverse consequence of a penalty is likely to arise. It was submitted that the issue of penalty would arise in the case of the five individual assessees/parties and not merely the two corporate entities, i.e., M/s Modern Industrial Enterprises and M/s Florida Electrical Industries Ltd. As far as the facts go, regardless the rules that even though in the first instance when the appeal was filed only one party, i.e., M/s Modern Industrial Enterprises was impleaded nevertheless before the Court took the cognizance of the matter (which was on 06.02.2006), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ised upon statutory provision, the mandate of the statute is to be followed. However, in the facts of the present case, the Court discerns no infirmity fatal or otherwise to say that the judgment finally disposing of the appeal in any manner prejudices the assessees/respondents, all of whom had notice and knowledge of the proceedings. 7. So far as the second aspect urged with respect to the substantial question of law is concerned, the second question of law formulated by this Court clearly shows that the Court was aware and conscious of the fact that two entities, i.e., M/s Modern Industrial Enterprises and M/s Florida Electrical Industries Ltd. were involved. The Court's findings that the CESTAT should have analyzed the materials ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
