IMPORTANT POINT
In the entire context of the statutory scheme especially sub-section (3) of Section 129-A of the Customs Act, only the parties to the proceedings before the adjudicating authority Collector of Customs could prefer an appeal to the CEGAT and neither the Central Government, through Industries Department, nor the rival company or industry operating in the same field as the importer can as a matter prefer an appeal as person aggrieved .

JUDGMENT

S.B. Majmudar, J.-M/s. Northern Plastics Ltd. is the common appellant in these two appeals moved by it after obtaining special leave to appeal from this Court against a common judgment dated 9th March 1990 passed by the High Court of Delhi in two Civil Writ Petitions, one moved by M/s. Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd. ( HPF for short), respondent No. 1 in C.A. No. 2035 of 1990, and the other the Union of India, respondent No. 1 in the companion Civil Appeal No. 2036 of 1990. The question posed for our consideration is as to whether 1st respondents in these civil writ appeals could be said to be persons aggrieved within the meaning of Section 129-A of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) so that they could challenge before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal ( CEGAT for short) the order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay dated 5th June 1989 agreeing with the notings made by the Assistant Collector of Customs dated 31st May 1989 recommending release of the imported goods to the common appellant on payment of full customs duty. The CEGAT took the view that respondent No. 1 in both these appeals had no locus standi to prefer appeals against the said order. The High Court of Delhi by the impugned judgment has taken a contrary view and has ruled in favour of the locus standi of these respective respondents.

2. Before we deal with the aforesaid question it will be necessary to note the relevant background facts leading to the present controversy between the parties. They project a chequered history. The common appellant, Northern Plastics Ltd., which will hereinafter be referred to as the appellant for the sake of convenience, is said to have obtained small Scale Industries Registration (SSI Registration) on 24th August 1985 for slitting and confectioning of jumbo rolls of various types of films. The said registration, according to the appellant, was obtained under The Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951 ( IDR Act for short). A notification was issued by the competent authority under the said Act on 18th July 1986 effectively taking away the exemption from requirement of licence in respect of Item 20 of 1st Schedule to the IDR Act thus making it obligatory for owner of industrial undertaking to have licence within six months. It is the case of the appellant that although it was not the owner of industrial undertaking as defined by the IDR Act, under a mistaken belief it applied for COB licence on 8th December 1986. On 7th July 1988 a notification was issued by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Act exempting jumbo rolls of graphic art films and jumbo rolls of photographic colour paper, of width 1 metre or more and of length 600 metres or more, falling within Chapter 37 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), when imported into India, from so much of that portion of the duty of customs leviable thereon under the said First Schedule as was in excess of the amount calculated at the rate of 60 per cent ad valorem, subject to the following conditions :

(i) the importer undertakes conversion of the said jumbo rolls by slitting or confectioning into finished products;

(ii) the importer holds an industrial licence under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (65 of 1951), for slitting and confectioning of photo-sensitised materials from jumbo rolls.

According to the appellant the benefit of this concession in import duty on the jumbo rolls of various types of films which were being imported by the appellant was available to it. The appellant had imported various consignments of articles of X-Ray films and graphic art films through the port at Bombay between January 1989 and May 1989. The shipments concerned for the same consignments were made in favour of the appellant by the foreign exporters between 15th December 19