https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341058 An appeal challenging an order that had set aside demand, interest and penalty against multiple persons was held not maintainable because it impleaded only one respondent. The failure to join the remaining necessary parties, even after the defect was pointed out and time was granted to cure it, meant the Tribunal did not have all indispensable respondents before it. Rule 6(2) of the CESTAT Procedure Rules did not dispense with joinder of necessary parties; it only governed filing of a single appeal in respect of each order in original by aggrieved persons. The appeal was dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. en-us Fri, 14 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Apr 2017 08:40:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341058 An appeal challenging an order that had set aside demand, interest and penalty against multiple persons was held not maintainable because it impleaded only one respondent. The failure to join the remaining necessary parties, even after the defect was pointed out and time was granted to cure it, meant the Tribunal did not have all indispensable respondents before it. Rule 6(2) of the CESTAT Procedure Rules did not dispense with joinder of necessary parties; it only governed filing of a single appeal in respect of each order in original by aggrieved persons. The appeal was dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 14 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341058