TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>UP State Electricity Board's Impleading Application Dismissed in Central Excise Appeal</h1> <h3>JAGAT INDUSTRIES Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KANPUR</h3> JAGAT INDUSTRIES Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KANPUR - 1998 (104) E.L.T. 37 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Impleading of UP State Electricity Board (UPSEB) in an appeal filed by Jagat Industries.2. Locus standi and entitlement of UPSEB to file the application for impleading.3. Interpretation of Central Excise Act and related provisions regarding appeals.4. Consideration of aggrieved party status and adherence to legal procedures.Analysis:1. The UP State Electricity Board (UPSEB) filed a Misc. application seeking impleading in an appeal by Jagat Industries against the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur. The question arose whether UPSEB had the right to be impleaded in the appeal, as the show cause notice and order-in-original were directed solely at Jagat Industries.2. The counsel for UPSEB argued that as they had engaged Jagat Industries under a job contract and paid the duty, they were directly affected by the order-in-original. However, the Tribunal found that UPSEB failed to demonstrate how their application could be entertained at that stage. The counsel referenced Section 4 of the Central Excise Act regarding related persons but could not establish locus standi for UPSEB.3. The Tribunal considered the settled law on related persons under the Central Excise Act and the requirement for an aggrieved person to file an appeal. The counsel for UPSEB reiterated that since UPSEB ultimately paid the duty, they should be considered an affected party. However, the Tribunal emphasized the need to show aggrieved party status according to Section 35B of the Central Excise Act and CEGAT (Procedure) Rules.4. Despite UPSEB's arguments, the Tribunal noted that the show cause notice and order-in-original were directed only at Jagat Industries. Furthermore, the Tribunal highlighted that UPSEB did not follow the prescribed legal procedures for filing an appeal as an aggrieved party. As Central Excise is an indirect tax, the burden is typically passed on to customers, and UPSEB's application for impleading was deemed not maintainable and subsequently dismissed.
TaxTMI 