TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (6) TMI 211
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and Shri S. Roychowdhury, Advocate, for the Applicants. Shri D.N. Bhowmick, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : D.M. Vasavada, Member (J)]. - The applicants have preferred this application praying that they may be permitted to be joined as co-appellants. It is contended that the consignment of the goods in question were consigned to Chittagong Port and the applicants - Md. Lutfur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otices to the present applicants who were the consignees of the consignment in question as this fact was borne out from the record which was in possession of the Adjudicating Authority. This fact has been mentioned in the order of adjudication itself. The applicants are the aggrieved persons and therefore, it is their contention that if they are not allowed to agitate this matter before this forum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gnment inasmuch as they have been given option to redeem the goods. But it is obvious that the present appellants who are not interested in the consignment in question, cannot be interested in redeeming the consignment. Apart from this, there was no legal duty cast upon the appellants to inform the applicants. Because it appears that there is no connection between the two. Now, as far as the proce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and in this connection, he has cited a case reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 974 Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Bombay v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. We have carefully perused that citation. But it has no application to the facts of the present case. 5. It is also contended by the D.R. that if the applicants feel that they have any legal grievance, they could have preferred a separate appeal. ....