Impleadment of jurisdictional Commissioner upheld where the dispute arose from the same show cause notice and transaction.

Rule 12 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 requires the concerned Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to be joined as respondent, and the expression was read to include the authority connected with the same show cause notice and transaction. Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, read with the analogy of Order I Rule 3 CPC, supported joinder of more than one respondent where the dispute arose from the same transaction and common questions were involved. The notifications dated 31.03.2022 and the departmental instruction dated 20.10.2016 were noted, but they did not bar impleadment where the statutory scheme permitted it. The jurisdictional Principal Commissioner or Commissioner was therefore allowed to be impleaded as an additional respondent.

---

---

Issues: Whether the jurisdictional Principal Commissioner or Commissioner issuing the show cause notice could be impleaded as an additional respondent along with the adjudicating Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in the appeal.

Analysis: Rule 12 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 requires the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner concerned to be made a respondent. The expression "concerned" was read to mean the authority connected with the lis arising out of the same show cause notice and transaction. Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 and the analogy of Order I Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 supported the view that more than one respondent may be joined where the dispute arises from the same transaction and common questions arise. The notifications of 31.03.2022 and the departmental instruction of 20.10.2016 were noted, but they were not treated as excluding impleadment where the statutory scheme allowed it.

Conclusion: The request for impleadment of the jurisdictional Principal Commissioner or Commissioner as an additional respondent was allowed.

---