Person aggrieved under Central Excise law requires a legal injury, not mere commercial loss from denied credit to a buyer.

The expression "person aggrieved" under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 requires a legal injury or wrongful deprivation of a legal right, not merely a commercial loss. Where the adjudication concerned only the buyer's entitlement to Modvat credit, suppliers who were neither subjected to duty demand nor penalty could not claim that the order determined any legal right of theirs. A stoppage of payment to the suppliers after denial of credit to the buyer was held to be only a commercial consequence and not a sufficient legal grievance. They therefore lacked locus to maintain the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants, who were neither subjected to demand nor penalty in the adjudication order, were "persons aggrieved" competent to maintain the appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The appeal was founded only on the contention that the appellants had supplied inputs to the buyer and had suffered stoppage of payment after denial of Modvat credit to that buyer. The dispute before the adjudicating authority, however, related to the entitlement of the buyer to Modvat credit and did not determine any legal right of the appellants under the Central Excise Act. A mere commercial loss arising from non-payment for goods supplied does not amount to a legal grievance for the purpose of appeal. The expression "person aggrieved" requires that the appellant must have suffered a legal injury or have been wrongfully deprived of a legal right.

Conclusion: The appellants were not persons aggrieved under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and had no locus to maintain the appeal.

---