Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Vinay Kr. & Others, Sh. Ramesh Kumar, ... vs Cce, Chandigarh on 5 January, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(128)ELT96(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
P.G. Chacko
1. These matters are being mentioned by Ld. Advocate Sh. Deepak Mahajan, junior to Ld. Advocate Sh. Vivek Sood. The Advocates propose to move these Misc. Applications on behalf of persons who seek to have the captioned appeals rejected on the ground that the appeals were filed by some other persons, who allegedly impersonated these applicants fraudulently. These applicants seek to invoke the Tribunal's powers under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules. Sh. Mahajan has requested for an adjournment of these matters on the ground of ill-health of his senior.
2. While granting the above request, I note that the captioned appeals are all directed against a common order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The said order is a voluminous document running into about 390 pages. There are 39 parties who must be aggrieved by the order. The appellants in Appeal Nos. E/2625, 2627 and 2623/2000-NB(SM) figure respectively at Sr. Nos. 22, 23 and 25 of the list of parties annexed to the impugned order. None of these appellants has produced the full text of the order. For instance, in the appeal filed by Vinay Kumar, Page Nos. 18 to 186 and 202 to 378 of the text of impugned order are not available. A similar state of affairs is seen in the other two appeal files also. On the other side of the story, the present applicants claim that, in fact, they are the persons figuring at Sr. Nos. 22, 23 and 25 in the list of parties annexed to the impugned order and that the appeals were filed fraudulently by some other persons by impersonation. They, therefore, want the proceedings before the Tribunal to be dropped under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules.
3. Obviously, there is something fishy in these matters. The Registry is directed to locate all the appeals filed against the above order of the Commissioner and post all of them before the same Bench. If any of such appeals has since been disposed of by the Tribunal, the same may also be reported to the concerned Bench before which the matters will come up for hearing in the regular course. All appeals against the above order shall be posted for mention to 29.1.2001. The present applicants will also be heard on that day on the condition that 50% of the respective amounts of penalty be deposited with the department and a certificate of such deposit from the departmental authority concerned be produced before the Bench. This interim order issues under rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules. Issue copy to the applicants' Counsel immediately. Further, issue copies to the applicants separately. Registry shall also issue notices to the appellants in all the aforesaid appeals.