S N LIHALA AND S K LIHALA Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
LAWS(CE)-1986-10-1
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on October 26,1986

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.K. Bhatnagar, Member (T) - (1.)SHRI S.N. Lihala & SHRI S.K. Lihala have filed an appeal No. CD(Cal) 354/83 against the order-in-original No. 52 dated 7-9-1983 passed by the Addl. Collector of Customs, Calcutta.
(2.)An appeal No. C(Cal.) 152/85 has also been filed by Shri Kashi Nath Panda against the very same order-in-original (No. 52, dated 7-9-1983 passed by the Addl. Collector of Customs, Calcutta, in respect of Shri S.N. Lihala & Shri S.K. Lihala and Ors.).
On 19-11-1985 it was brought to the notice of the Bench by the department that both these are connected matter in which the same goods are in issue.

(3.)AFTER hearing the counsels of both the sides and the department, the Tribunal had passed an order observing inter alia, that :-
"3. It is, thus seen that in respect of the same goods there are contesting claimants also, they being the appellants in Appeal No. CD(Cal.) 354/83 and the Appeal No. C-152/85. No doubt Shri J.M. Roy, the Ld. Consultant for the Appellants in Appeal No. CD(Cal.)-354/83 does not admit that the claim of the Appellant in the other Appeal could relate to the goods which is claimed by his Client. This is not a matter that can be gone into at present.

4. It is also to be noted that though the claim in Appeal No. 152/85 is said to relate to the same goods as are the subject matter in Appeal No. 354/83, the Appellants in Appeal No. 354/83 have not been made parties to the Appeal No. 152/85. No doubt, Shri Mukhopadhyay represented that in their appeal the Collector alone could be made Respondent and he relied upon Rule 12 of the CEGAT Procedure Rules to support this contention. But it would be seen that Rule 12 only states that in an Appeal of a Private party the Collector shall be made the Respondent and not that the Collector should alone be made Respondent. Taking into consideration the fact that the Appellants in Appeal No. 354/83 are also contesting Claimants for the goods which are subject matter in Appeal No. 152/85, we feel that the said Appellants, Shri S.N. Lihala and Shri S.K. Lihala are also to be made Respondents in Appeal No. 152/85, so that they may also be heard on the contentions raised by Shri Mukhopadhyay for the Appellants in Appeal No. 152/85. This would require that apart from being made Respondents in the above said manner, the paper books filed by each of the parties should be served on the other also. Thereafter, the two appeals could be conveniently heard together, so that all the matters in controversy may be gone into in the presence of all the persons who are interested in claiming title to the goods in question, for relief in respect thereof."

and the order No. 516/Cal/85-4103 was accordingly issued.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.