TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri PRV Ramanan, Special Counsel, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)].- This Miscellaneous Application for intervention has been filed by Ductile Iron Pipes and Castings Manufacturers' Association in the matter of Subhash Projects and Marketing Ltd., Bangalore v. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin. 2. The circumstances leading to the above mentioned Miscellaneous Application are as follows. It is seen that the applicant is an association representing domestic Indian manufacturers of Ductile Iron Pipes and Castings. The Bangalore Bench of CESTAT in the Miscellaneous Order No. M/568/2007 dated 12-11-2007 [2008 (223) E.L.T. 278 (T)] passed in appeal No. C/384/2007 referred the following issue to the Hon'ble President of the Tribunal for constituting a Larger Bench to decide the issue. "Whether the Project Import benefit under the Project Import Regulations, 1986 under Sl. No. 26 - 'Drinking Water Supply projects for supply of water for human or animal consumption' is to be restricted only to equipments needed for water treatment plant and not for projects for bringing water from the source to the treatment plant a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 of the Constitution of India. The applicant is in the premises, a proper party before the Larger Bench to assist the Tribunal to lay down the correct legal position. 4.2 He cited the following decisions where intervention was allowed. (a) Kamakhya Steels (P) Ltd. v. CCE - 2000 (121) E.L.T. 247 (Tri.-LB) (b) CCE v. Asia Brown Boveri Ltd. - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 228 (Tri.-LB) (c) CCE v. A.B. Tools Ltd. - 1994 (71) E.L.T. 776 (Tri.-LB) (d) Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CCE - 1985 (21) E.L.T. 757 (T) (e) Blue Cross Laboratories Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2006 (202) E.L.T. 182 (Tri.-LB) 4.3 Shri Chakravarthy invited our attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Addl. Member, Board of Revenue - AIR 1963 SC 786 wherein the court has made a clear distinction between a 'necessary party' and a 'proper party'. He took us through paras 7, 10 and 12, which are reproduced below. "7. To answer the question raised it would be convenient at the outset to ascertain who are necessary or proper parties in a proceeding. The law on the subject is well settled: it is enough if we state the principle. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, if C can show a fair semblance of title or interest he can certainly file an application for impleadment. To take a contrary view would lead to multiplicity of proceedings because then C will have to wait until a decree is passed against B, and then file a suit for cancellation of the decree on the ground that A had no title in the property in dispute. Clearly, such a view cannot be countenanced." 4.6 The applicant states and submits that in the premises aforesaid it is and proper that the applicant be impleaded as a party in the present proceedings and/or be permitted to intervene and make oral/written submissions on the issue referred for decision before the Larger Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal. 4.7 In view of the above the following prayer was made. (a) The applicant be impleaded as a party in the present proceedings before the Larger Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal; or (b) In the alternative, the applicant be allowed as an intervener to be heard and to make oral/written submissions before the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal, on the aforesaid issue referred to the said Hon'ble Bench for decision. (c) Such other order or orders be passed and/or direction be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplicant have no legal ground to justify their stand. They have merely pleaded economic difficulty, which is not a ground for deciding a legal dispute. Their concern relating to economic hardship is best addressed by the Government, which they have already done by approaching the anti dumping authority. Anti dumping duty has been imposed to neutralize the injury caused to the domestic industry vide Notification No. 103/2007-Cus., dated 14-9-2007. Hence, the applicants cannot contend that the provision of project import benefit to the appellants will cause them any injury. Therefore, the applicant has no ground to intervene in the present case. (viii) Another ground sought by the intervener is that an appeal is pending before the Apex Court against the impugned decision in the Pratibha Industries case. This ground is not tenable in view of the following decisions. (a) CIT, W.B. II v. Saila Behari L Singha - AIR 1970 SC 1702 wherein it was held that answers to questions referred to the High Court should be final and they cannot be made subject to decision in appeal pending before the Supreme Court in an other reference even with the consent of the parties. (b) Union o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e cannot say that the applicant is an aggrieved person because none of the rights of the members of the applicant have been adversely affected. 6.1 In the M/s. Pankaj Steel Corporation v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai (supra), even though ONGC was the assessee affected by the impugned order, they did not file any appeal. However, M/s. Pankaj Steel Corporation (supra) filed the appeal challenging the impugned order though they were not the party in the proceedings before the Commissioner who passed the impugned order. The Tribunal observed that the appellant who is not an assessee in the eyes of Central Excise Law has no rights or obligation under the same. Further, in the Tinplate Company of India Ltd. v. CC, Calcutta (supra), it was held that at the second stage of appeal, parties not issued with show cause notice could not be impleaded. In the Hindustan Polymer v. CCE (supra), it was held that merely because he may be incidentally affected by an order, that by itself is not a ground to implead him as a co-appellant under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. In the case of Jagat Industries v. CCE, Kanpur (supra), the applicant M/s. UP State Electricity Board ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
