TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 87
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry . It is requested to permit them as a necessary party in the appeal filed by the Port Department, Govt. of Puducherry , as their interest is involved in the said appeal. 2. The learned Counsel Shri P. Ravindran on behalf of the applicant submits that the Port Department, Govt. of Puducherry entered into an agreement with the applicant , known as "Concession Agreement for Development of Karaikal Port Project" and engaged them for developing and operating the Karaikal Port under the consideration of concession fees. He submits that after confirmation of demand by the impugned Adjudication order, the Port Department raised a notice to recover the tax from them. So, the demand of tax involved in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to the applicant and have not paid service tax on the services provided to them. The Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of service tax along with interest and penalty on the Port Department, who had filed Appeal No.E /41794/2013 before the Tribunal. The applicant filed this application to permit them as necessary party/ intervenor in the appeal of the Port Department. 4. The main contention of the learned Counsel is that the demand of tax in the present case would affect their right and business liability and, therefore, they would like to intervene in the present appeal. It is also contended that they have paid service tax on port service and, therefore, the demand of tax on the Port Department herein would amount to double t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(1) was issued to Port Department, Govt. of Puducherry . The impugned adjudication order was passed against Port Department, Govt. of Puducherry , who has filed appeal before the Tribunal. We have noticed that the present applicant had not approached the Adjudicating authority. Therefore, we do not find any force in the application filed by the applicant. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of, U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax reported in 2011 (21) S.T.R 357 (S.C) , held as under:- "4. The contentions of the appellant were taken notice of by the High Court and by the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court the wri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act, 1994. In case the said aggrieved parties take recourse to such statutory remedy, they would be entitled to take and urge all issues which may be available to them in accordance with law . The said issues as and when raised shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. 7. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Hindustan Lamination Ltd. Vs Union of India reported in 2005 (192) E.L.T.48 (Cal) held as under:- "13. In view of the aforesaid ratio tn Mask & Co. and having regard to the provisions contained under the Central Excise Act, 1944 in which detailed machinery has been provided for redressal of the grievances of the appellant, this Court finds that the....