ORDER
1. This is a miscellaneous application filed by the Respondent in the appeal before us-filed by M/s. Tinplate Company of India Ltd.-praying for the addition of
(1) M/s. Iron & Steel Controller 234/4-A.J.C. Bose Road, Calcutta-20,
(2) M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd.
16, Kasturba Gandhi Road, New Delhi-1, and
(3) M/s. K.R.S. Steel Union Mittal Court (4th Floor) ‘B’ Wing, Nariman Point, Bombay-21 as Respondents.
2. It is averred in the application that-
(a) there is a “dispute amongst certain parties involved in importation of the goods regarding the liability arising out of the demand notice issued under S. 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter, the Act); and
(b) any decision in the instant appeal is likely to affect the interests of the aforesaid parties.
Accordingly, it is prayed that in the interests of justice and in exercise of the powers vested in the Tribunal under Rule 41 of the CEGAT Procedure Rules, 1982, the aforesaid parties may be impleaded.
3. The facts material for deciding the application are-
(a) the imported goods, namely, 19039.26 M/Tonnes of T.M.B.P. Coils, liable to be assessed to customs duty under Heading 73.13 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (along with additional and auxiliary duties), were, on arrival in Calcutta after 1-1-1984, kept in a Customs Bonded Warehouse in terms of S. 59(1) of the Act;
(b) on or about 4-2-1984, an ad hoc exemption notification under S. 25(2) of the Act was issued, exempting the 27,440 M/Tonnes of the said goods imported into India by M/s. Steel Authority of India from customs duty in excess of 20% as well as the full additional and auxiliary duties. The exemption was to remain valid till 30-4-1984;
(c) in accordance with the prevailing practice, the Respondent had established Letters of Credit for purchase of goods in question on high seas sales basis and documents issued in favour of the canalising agent M/s. Steel Authority of India who endorsed them in favour of the Respondent for arranging clearance and the goods were actually cleared on the basis’ of the aforesaid exemption;
(d) M/s. Steel Authority had initially allotted a quantity of 1984.670 M/Tonnes on or about 6-3-1984. Subsequently, the Respondent was allotted another quantity of 18,602 M/Tonnes of the goods. The aggregate quantity allotted was thus 20,586.670 M/Tonnes. On the basis of these allotments the bulk of the goods were cleared from the warehouse after assessment to duty in terms of the aforesaid notification, when a notice dated 21-7-1984 was issued, alleging, inter alia, clearance of a quantity of 8378 138 M/Tonnes in excess at the concessional rate of duty of 20% and requiring the Respondent to show cause why an amount of Rs. 2,82,25,228/-, short-levied should not be recovered;
(e) in adjudication, as well as in an appeal from the order in adjudication, the demand for payment of duty short-levied in respect of a quantity of 7064 M/Tonnes only (and not 8378.1 38 M/Tonnes alleged in the notice) was confirmed in a sum of Rs. 2,50,27,474.30 only;
(f) the appeal by the Respondent to this Tribunal was the sequel.
4. (a) Admittedly, the notice to show cause was not issued to any of the parties now sought to be impleaded. Nor were they required to be impleaded at any stage prior to the instant application in second appeal before the Tribunal.
(b) The jurisdiction for the adjudication as well as the scope of the enquiry is circumscribed and conditioned by the allegations in the notice to show cause. At the stage of second appeal neither the scope of the enquiry nor the jurisdiction for the enquiry can be enlarged to bring in parties other than the one to whom the notice to show cause was originally issued.
(c) To refute the case of the Appellant, any of the parties now sought to be impleaded could have been examined as witnesses without, necessarily impleading them as parties. Not having chosen to do so, the Respondent is not to be given another opportunity to make good the lapse.
The application is without any merits and is accordingly dismissed.