2009 (4) TMI 809 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over Central Excise License name inclusion; appeal dismissed, legal action advised

The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to address the inclusion/exclusion of the appellant's name in the Central Excise Licence and emphasized that ... - Issues Involved:1. Legality of the appellant's removal from the partnership firm.2. Validity of the reconstituted partnership deed.3. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to address the inclusion/exclusion of the appellant's name in the Central Excise Licence.4. Adequacy of the process followed by the Central Excise authorities in amending the licence.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the appellant's removal from the partnership firm:The appellant contended that his removal from the partnership firm, M/s. A.A. Airani & Sons, was illegal. He argued that the reconstituted partnership deed was fabricated and that his removal was done without his consent. The appellant had previously filed a suit (O.S. No. 272/90) in the Munsif Court at Ranebennur, which was dismissed for default in 1997. The appellant also filed multiple writ petitions (W.P. No. 54118/2003 and W.P. No. 4768/2005) seeking to include his name in the Central Excise Registration Certificate, both of which were dismissed.2. Validity of the reconstituted partnership deed:The appellant claimed that the reconstituted partnership deed was fabricated and that the removal of his name from the partnership firm was based on false documents. He argued that the documents submitted to the Central Excise authorities were not genuine and that his removal was done deceitfully. The appellant maintained that the partnership conditions mentioned in the deed were contravened by the respondent partners.3. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to address the inclusion/exclusion of the appellant's name in the Central Excise Licence:The Tribunal considered whether it had the jurisdiction to pass an order regarding the inclusion or exclusion of the appellant's name from the L-4 licences. The Tribunal concluded that it did not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate on the authenticity of the documents presented to the licensing authority or to settle partnership disputes. The Tribunal emphasized that such matters should be addressed by appropriate legal forums.4. Adequacy of the process followed by the Central Excise authorities in amending the licence:The Tribunal reviewed the process followed by the Central Excise authorities in amending the licence. The licensing authority had deleted the appellant's name based on the documents submitted by the firm. The Tribunal noted that the authorities acted in good faith and were not required to verify the genuineness of the documents at the time of amendment. The Commissioner (Appeals) also found no infirmity in the actions of the department, stating that the appellant should have pursued legal action against the alleged fraudulent documents in a timely manner.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that it did not have the jurisdiction to decide on the inclusion or exclusion of the appellant's name in the Central Excise Licence. It held that the appellant should have pursued appropriate legal remedies to challenge the alleged fraudulent documents. The Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, affirming the decisions of the lower authorities.