2013 (6) TMI 365 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate Tribunal emphasizes merits & natural justice, remands appeals for fresh decision. Consider related matters together.

Sarita Agarwal and Shri Ravindra Kumar Agarwal Versus CCE, Lucknow

Sarita Agarwal and Shri Ravindra Kumar Agarwal Versus CCE, Lucknow - TMI Issues involved:1. Miscellaneous application for intervention and stay petitions against rejection of appeal as not maintainable.Analysis:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi involved a miscellaneous application filed by Mrs. Asha Agarwal seeking intervention in a matter, along with stay petitions filed by two other appellants against the rejection of their appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) on grounds of non-maintainability. The Deputy Commissioner had initially rejected a request by Smt. Asha Agarwal for an amendment in the registration certificate. Three appeals were subsequently filed against this decision, one by Shri Ravindra & Co. and the other two by Smt. Sarita Agarwal and Shri Ravindra Kumar Agarwal. Notably, no appeal was directly filed in the name of Smt. Asha Agarwal, although it was claimed that the appeal by Ravindra & Co. was actually filed by her, which was not substantiated with supporting documents.The Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the appeal on the basis of non-maintainability, citing a previous order where the impugned order had been set aside in another appeal. The Tribunal found this route of dismissal to be against the principles of natural justice, as all three appeals arising from the same original order were disposed of on the same day. Without delving into the case's merits, the Tribunal set aside the order of non-maintainability and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on the merits, emphasizing that the Revenue cannot benefit from its own errors.Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the earlier order in favor of the assessee had not been challenged and therefore did not require interference. It was highlighted that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have decided all related matters together, which was not done initially. The Tribunal granted liberty to Asha Agarwal to present her case before the Commissioner (Appeals) and instructed the appellate authority to examine whether a separate appeal was filed by her against the earlier order, which had implications for her despite the claim that the appeal by Ravindra & Co. was on her behalf. The miscellaneous application, appeals, and stay petitions were disposed of accordingly.