M. Veeraiyan, Member (T)

1. Heard both sides on the miscellaneous application seeking amendment in the cause title. Order-in-Original dated 11-10-2002 was passed by Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-II Commissionerate confirming demand of duty along with interest and imposing penalties. Party went on appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II), Bangalore vide order dated 14-10-2003 rejected the appeal of the party. The party filed appeal before the Tribunal which was registered as appeal No. E/82/2004. The appeal memorandum indicated Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II), Bangalore as the respondent. The Tribunal vide Final Order No. 1336-1337/2005, dated 10-8-2005 disposed of the appeal (along with another appeal of another party involving same issue). The appeal against the order of the Tribunal has been filed before Honble High Court by Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-III Commissionerate who is said to have become the jurisdictional Commissioner, due to reorganization of the jurisdiction of the Commissionerates, in so far as the said assessee is concerned. The Honble High Court of Karnataka vide order dated 21-7-2011, has directed the Tribunal to consider the issue relating to penalty afresh.

2. Now the Commissioner of Central Excise, LTU Bangalore has filed an application for changing the cause title in appeal memorandum filed by the assessee way back in 2004. On the ground that the appellant-assessee is now coming under the jurisdiction of Large Taxpayers Unit (LTU), Bangalore. The jurisdictions of the Central Excise Commissionerate keep changing due to administrative exigencies. Apparently, the unit was initially in the jurisdiction of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-II Commissionerate and subsequently came under the jurisdiction of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-III Commissionerate when the dispute was before the Honble High Court and presently has come under the jurisdiction of Commissioner of Central Excise, LTU. The exact dates on which the jurisdictional changes took place have not been furnished. The successor Commissioner no doubt steps into the shoes of the previous Commissioner for the purpose of jurisdiction. It has not been shown as to what prejudice has been caused to the present applicant and in what way they are handicapped in defending the case before the Tribunal. At any rate, this may not justify amendment of cause title, a document filed by the appellant at the instance of the present jurisdictional Commissionerate viz. Commissioner of Central Excise, LTU. Such an application could be entertained only at the instance of person who has filed the said document. Application is, therefore, dismissed as not maintainable.

(Pronounced and dictated in open Court)