Impleadment of third parties in pending appeal rejected where procedure rules did not permit addition as respondents.

Third parties sought impleadment as respondents in a pending CESTAT appeal on the basis that the result might affect their rights and outstanding amounts. The Tribunal held that the appeal was by the person aggrieved by the order setting aside the registration certificate issued in his name, and that the proviso to Rule 12 of the CEGAT Procedure Rules did not permit addition of any other person as respondent in those circumstances. The misc. applications were therefore treated as misdirected and not maintainable, and the applicants were left to pursue any other remedies available to them.

---

---

Issues: Whether third parties could be impleaded as respondents in the pending appeal and whether their misc. applications were maintainable.

Analysis: The applications sought permission to be heard in the appeal on the footing that the result of the appeal might affect their rights and outstanding amounts. The Tribunal found that the appeal before it was by the person aggrieved by the order setting aside the registration certificate issued in his name. It held that, in the circumstances, the proviso to Rule 12 of the CEGAT Procedure Rules did not permit addition of any other person as respondent. The applications were treated as misdirected and mis-placed, and the applicants were left to pursue other legal remedies, if available.

Conclusion: The applications for impleadment were not maintainable and were dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal refused to add the applicants as respondents in the appeal, leaving the underlying appeal to proceed without their participation.

Ratio Decidendi: A person cannot be impleaded as respondent in an appeal where the applicable procedural rule does not permit such addition and the application is otherwise not maintainable.

---