Locus standi in refund proceedings upheld where purchaser was directly issued show-cause notice and dispute sent back for fresh decision.

A purchaser who was issued a show-cause notice along with the original refund claimant could not be treated as a stranger to the refund proceedings under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On that basis, the appellate finding that the purchaser lacked locus standi was unsustainable because the notice directly implicated its interest in the refund dispute. With the connected refund matter already remanded in the related proceeding, this dispute also had to follow the earlier remand directions and be decided afresh by the original adjudicating authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant had locus standi to challenge rejection of the refund claim and whether the lower appellate authority was justified in holding that the appellant was not an aggrieved person.

Analysis: The show-cause notice itself had been issued to both the purchaser-appellant and the original claimant, directing them to explain why the refund claim should not be rejected under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In that situation, the appellant was directly concerned with the refund proceedings and could not be treated as a stranger to the dispute. The finding that the appellant lacked locus standi was therefore unsustainable. As the connected dispute regarding the refund claim had already been remanded in the related matter, the present matter also required to be sent back for decision in accordance with the earlier remand directions.

Conclusion: The appellant was held to have locus standi, the order rejecting its appeal was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh decision.

---