TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (11) TMI 135
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e above two persons. Definitely when the other two persons can file appeal against the order, if they felt aggrieved, it is not open for the appellant to request for setting aside the order of imposition of penalty on them. I, therefore, do not find any justification to entertain this request when the above two individuals have not filed any appeal. Accordingly, I reject the plea of the appellant for setting aside the order of imposition of penalty on S/Shri H.C. Choksi and C.R. Salian. The appeal is accordingly disposed of." 2. The facts of the case are that the department issued a show cause notice dated 7-3-1992 to M/s. ORG Systems and to C.R. Salian above named appellants and it appears no show cause notice was issued to Shri H.C. Choksi, the other appellant in this case under Sections 111(m), 112(a) for violation of Section 11 of Customs Act, 1962. The company filed a detailed reply and so also Salian but no reply was filed by Shri Choksi. The ld. Deputy Collector passed the order-in-original against the appellants and the company, by which he ordered for confiscation of 45 Nos. of wine Chester Disc Drives under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act but at the same time granted r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was also not a joint appeal. The provisions of order 1 Rule 10 were specifically meant for adjudication in Civil Suits before Civil Courts to determine the rights between all the parties, whose right would be effected and hence the said proviso is not applicable to these proceedings. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and also perused the rulings cited before us. The proviso granting right of appeal to the Collector against the orders passed by adjudication is provided in Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. It reads as follows :- "128. Appeals to Collector (Appeals) - (1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act by an officer of Customs lower in rank than a Collector of Customs may appeal to the Collector (Appeals) within three months from the date of re-communication to him of such decision or order : Provided that the Collector (Appeals) may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause front presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of three months, allow it to be presented within a further period of three months. (2) Every appeal under this section shall be in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... after the Collector having opined in the impugned order. The appeal against the impugned order-in-original lies before Collector (Appeals). Therefore, the present appeals are clearly not maintainable. The rulings cited by the ld. Counsel is under Civil Procedure Code, which proviso does not apply to the appeal proceedings under the Customs Act. 7. In Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd. and Union of India v. CEGAT - 1989 (50) E.L.T. 234, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court examined the matter pertaining to right of appeal by `aggrieved persons' under Section 129A of the Customs Act. Analysing the proviso, the Court held that Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd. would come under "aggrieved persons" as their right would be affected if they were not heard, as from the scheme of the Act it is clear that unless the Union Govt. and its instrumentalities are included in the words "person aggrieved", there would be no agency left to stand up before the Appellate Tribunal for vindication of the prohibitions imposed upon import and export for various heads of public interest, mentioned in Section 11 of the Act. Therefore, it is clear that the Court was examining the issue from the context of i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re Hon'ble High Court of Delhi are set out in paras 1 and 2 of the said Report which are reproduced below :- After a detailed discussion of the various arguments on the question of the scope of the expression `aggrieved person' the Court held that M/s. Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Co. Ltd. & UOI are `aggrieved persons' within the meaning of Section 129A ibid and are fully competent to maintain and file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The crucial point to be noted here is that Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Co. Ltd. & UOI was not a party before the adjudicating authority, namely, the Collector of Customs, Bombay, against whose order an appeal was sought to be filed by the said company. Yet it was held on the basis of the scope of that expression that Hindustan Photo Films is an `aggrieved person' in view of the public interest in the litigation involved therein. 8.4 In the present case the two appellants, namely, C.R Salian and H.C. Choksi have been imposed with penalties by the adjudicating authority despite the fact that one of the appellants Shri H.C. Choksi was not even issued a show cause notice. Those penalties have been sustained by the lower appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....settle all the questions involved in the suit'. There is ample authority for the proposition that the questions involved in the suit mean and include only those questions that are involved in the suit between the parties to it, who are already on the record, and cannot include those questions that may subsequently arise between them and the person who seeks to be impleaded as a party to the suit (See Razia Begum v. Anwar Begum, AIR 1958 Andhra Pradesh 195, Moti Ram Roshan Lal Coal Co. v. District Committee, Dhanbad, AIR 1962 Pat. 357, and Vaithilinga v. Sadasiva, AIR 1926 Mad. 836)." [Emphasis supplied] 9.1. This proposition is also supported by the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Bal Niketan Nursery School v. Kesari Prasad [4 JT 1987 (3) SC 93]. The Supreme Court after laying down the law in para 13 finally observed in para 22 of the said Report :- "22. Having regard to this settled position of law the High Court ought not to have sustained the objection raised by the tenants regarding the competency of the appellant to file the suits and quashed the orders of the eviction concurrently passed by the Small Causes Court and the Appellate Judge and remitted the su....