Non-joinder of necessary parties makes a challenge to relief for multiple persons not maintainable before CESTAT.

An appeal challenging an order that had set aside demand, interest and penalty against multiple persons was held not maintainable because it impleaded only one respondent. The failure to join the remaining necessary parties, even after the defect was pointed out and time was granted to cure it, meant the Tribunal did not have all indispensable respondents before it. Rule 6(2) of the CESTAT Procedure Rules did not dispense with joinder of necessary parties; it only governed filing of a single appeal in respect of each order in original by aggrieved persons. The appeal was dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal was maintainable when it challenged an order passed against multiple persons but did not implead all necessary respondents.

Analysis: The appeal assailed an order setting aside demand, interest and penalty against five persons, but it was filed only against one respondent. The omission to implead the remaining persons, despite the defect having been pointed out and time having been granted to cure it, meant that necessary parties were not before the Tribunal. Rule 6(2) of the CESTAT Procedure Rules did not dispense with the requirement of impleading all necessary respondents; it only governed filing of a single appeal in respect of each order in original by the aggrieved persons.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties and was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal challenging relief granted to multiple persons is not maintainable unless all necessary respondents are impleaded; a procedural rule permitting a single appeal does not excuse non-joinder of necessary parties.

---