Functus officio bars an adjudicating authority from intervening in appeal proceedings against its own order.

An adjudicating authority, after completing adjudication, is functus officio and cannot file miscellaneous applications to transfer an appeal, seek expunction of records, or request adjournment in proceedings against its own order unless a statute expressly permits it. The Tribunal applied the procedural scheme under the CESTAT Procedure Rules and Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962, which contemplates appellate action by an adjudicating authority only through statutory review directions. In the absence of any statutory basis for such intervention, the applications were held not maintainable and dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether an adjudicating authority, after passing the impugned order, had locus standi or competence to file miscellaneous applications seeking transfer of the appeal, expunction of records and adjournment, and whether such applications were maintainable before the Tribunal.

Analysis: The applications were filed by the adjudicating authority itself, though the authority had already concluded the adjudication and was not a respondent on record in the appeal. The Tribunal held that once adjudication is completed, the adjudicating authority becomes functus officio and has no role to defend or intervene in the appellate proceedings against its own order, save to the limited extent recognized by the statute. The Tribunal relied on the procedural scheme of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules and on Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962, which recognizes appellate action by an adjudicating authority only through statutory review directions. It further held that there is no statutory basis for expunction of records, and that the prayers for transfer and adjournment were outside the applicant's authority and contrary to accepted procedural norms.

Conclusion: The miscellaneous applications were not maintainable and were dismissed; the adjudicating authority had no locus standi to intervene in the appeal against its own order.

---