Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce Mumbai vs Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd on 9 March, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO. II
APPLICATION No. E/MA (Ors)-295/11 in APPEAL NO. E/3876/02 Mum
Arising out of Order-in-Original No. V.Adj (Ch.87) 15-19/2001/1591 to 1623 dated 19.11.2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Mumbai V.
For approval and signature:
Shri. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Shri. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
CCE Mumbai
:
Appellant
Versus
Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.
Respondent
Appearance Shri W.L. Hangshing, Jt. CDR for appellant Shri Gajendra Jain, Advocate For Respondent CORAM:
Shri. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Shri. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing : 09.03.2011 Date of Decision : 09.03.2011 ORDER NO.
Per Ashok Jindal Revenue has filed this appeal against the impugned order wherein the adjudicating authority has exonerated Shri Mohan Raghavan, General Manager of M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. and not imposed any penalty on him.
2. The facts of the case are that the adjudicating authority has passed an order by confirming the duty, interest and penalty against the respondent (M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.) but has not imposed any penalty on Shri Mohan Raghavan, G.M of the respondent company. Shri Mohan Raghavan was also a co-noticee in the show-cause notice. M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. also filed an appeal against the impugned order of confirmation of duty, interest and penalty and the said order was set aside by this Tribunal. Thereafter, the present appeal was listed before this Tribunal for final disposal. This Tribunal observed that since the adjudication order has already been set aside in the appeal filed by respondent, this appeal merges with that order hence, this appeal of the Revenue was rejected. The Revenue preferred an appeal against the order of the Tribunal before the Honble High Court of Bombay and the Honble High Court has remanded the appeal back to the Tribunal to dispose of according to law and on its merits.
3. On perusal of the appeal memo, we observed that this appeal has been filed against M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. as respondent and in the entire appeal memo no relief has been sought against the said respondent. Therefore, prima facie, it was observed by this Tribunal vide Order No. M/203/2011/EB/C-II dated 09.02.2011 that the appeal against M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. is not maintainable. The learned DR sought time to get clarification from the department therefore, the matter was adjourned and listed today for final hearing. During this period, Revenue has filed a miscellaneous application for Rectification of Mistake stating that a typographical error has been occurred in the appeal memo the same has also been taken on record.
5. The learned DR submitted that there was a typographical error in the Form EA 5 wherein the name of the respondent was mentioned as M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. instead of Shri Mohan Raghavan, G.M of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Therefore, he sought an amendment in the appeal memo as it was a typographical error.
6. Heard and considered.
7. We have gone through the appeal memo as well the ROM application. We find that this appeal has been filed by the Revenue on 17th December, 2002 which was disposed of by this Tribunal on 04.04.2006 against which the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Honble High Court of Bombay wherein also they have made Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. as respondent. The Honble High Court has gone through the facts of the case and after ascertaining that the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with the law, the same was remanded back to this Tribunal to pass an order in accordance with law and on merits of the appeal. After going through the appeal papers we find that as no relief has been sought by the appellant against Mahindra & Mahindra (respondent), this appeal is not maintainable. Therefore, an application for rectification of typographical error was filed. This shows that the officers of the Revenue are not working properly and filing the appeal in a casual manner without going into the facts. The appeal was filed in the year 2002, the appellant sought amending the name of the respondent in 2011 cannot be permitted at this stage. Therefore, we reject the ROM application for typographical error as if this application is allowed the whole process of law will be vitiated. As we have already observed that no relief has been sought against the respondent, we find that the appeal deserves no merit. Therefore, the appeal is also dismissed. In view of the above observation, the appeal as well as miscellaneous application are rejected.
(Pronounced in open Court) (P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) nsk 4