Substitution of respondent under CEGAT procedure fails where the original company still exists; cross-objections also lack locus standi.

Rule 22 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 permits substitution only in the situations recognised by the rule, and not where the original respondent company continues to exist. On the facts, the requested substitution of a different entity as respondent was therefore not maintainable and was rejected. Because that entity was not accepted as a proper substitute and had no recognised locus standi in the appeal, its purported cross-objections were also not maintainable and were dismissed. Rule 230(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held inapplicable on the facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application to substitute a different entity as respondent was maintainable under Rule 22 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 when the original respondent company continued to exist; (ii) Whether the purported cross-objections filed by the substituted entity were maintainable for want of locus standi.

Issue (i): Whether an application to substitute a different entity as respondent was maintainable under Rule 22 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 when the original respondent company continued to exist.

Analysis: Rule 22 contemplates substitution in specified situations and is directed to bringing on record a successor where the relevant party has ceased to be in the proceeding in the manner recognised by the rule. The original respondent remained in existence, and the application was not one properly brought by the appellant or the successor for substitution in the manner contemplated. Rule 230(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was also found inapplicable on the facts.

Conclusion: The substitution application was not maintainable and was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the purported cross-objections filed by the substituted entity were maintainable for want of locus standi.

Analysis: Since the entity sought to be brought in was not accepted as a proper substitute and the question of its liability or rights was not the subject of the proceeding, it could not claim the status necessary to maintain cross-objections in the appeal.

Conclusion: The cross-objections were not maintainable and were dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings were disposed of against the request for substitution, and the connected cross-objections also failed for lack of maintainability.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the original respondent continues to exist, substitution of another entity is not maintainable under Rule 22 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 unless the rule's conditions for bringing a successor on record are satisfied; consequential cross-objections by an entity without recognised locus standi are not maintainable.

---