JUDGMENT By the Court.—The appeal by the revenue arises from a decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 7 October 2013. 2. The revenue has formulated the following questions of law: “1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in dismissing the appeal for mis-joinder of parties, in an appeal arising out of quasi-judicial proceedings (wherein the provisions of CPC are not applicable) of the Central Excise Department by incorrectly applying the Judgement arising out of a suit which was in nature of pure civil proceedings? 2. Whether the Tribunal after holding the appeal to be incompetent could itself have declared/observed that quasi-judicial proceedings of the Central Excise department to be a nullity and void when the matter could not be examined on merits at all? 3. Whether the CESTAT was right in holding the appeal to be an incompetent appeal when the dispute arose out of quasi-judicial proceedings inter-se between two departments of the Union of India (Central Government) as the Union of India was not impleaded.” 3. A notice to show-cause was issued on 28 February 2011 by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Allahabad to the Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway by which it was sought to be alleged that service tax was not paid on the taxable service of ‘renting of immovable property’ under Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994 and on the taxable service of ‘sale of space and time for advertisement’ under Section 65(105)(zzzm). The notice was adjudicated upon and the demand was confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax on 26 October 2012. An appeal was filed by the Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway before the CESTAT. The Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 7 October 2013 has held that at all stages of the proceedings, including the issuance of a notice to show-cause, service thereof, in the adjudication and in the appeal before the Tribunal, the Divisional Railway Manager was arrayed as a sole party and at no stage, were proceedings initiated against the Union of India or the Ministry of Railways. Relying on the analogy of Section 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Tribunal held, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of A.P. v. Collector and others, AIR 2003 SC 1805 , that the entire proceeding resulting in the order of adjudication was a nullity on the ground that the Union of India through the Ministry of Railways, which was a necessary party, was not impleaded and was not put to notice at any stage of the proceeding and consequently the appeal filed by the Divisional Railway Manager, for the same reason, was held to be incompetent. A declaration was, therefore, made that the order of adjudication is a nullity. 4. Now it is not in dispute that the assessment was in respect of the Union of India through the Ministry of Railways. The Divisional Railway Manager, who is an employee of the Union of India or Ministry of Railway, is not the assessee. No show-cause notice was issued to the Union Government. The adjudication did not take place against the Union Government. The order of adjudication and the demand that would be raised in pursuance thereof, would be enforced not against the Divisional Railway Manager but against the Union of India through the Ministry of Railways. Having regard to this position, it is but necessary that the proceedings commencing with the notice to show-cause must be initiated against the Union of India through the Ministry of Railways. 5. The principle of law has been well-settled following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ranjeet Mal v. General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi and another, AIR 1997 SC 1701 . The Supreme Court held that the Union Government represents the railway administration and carries on administration through different servants. In that case it was held that any order which would be passed under Article 226 will fasten liability on the Union Government and not on the servants of the Union and hence the High Court was correct in holding that the Union Government was a necessary party. This principle has been subsequently followed by the Supreme Court in Chief Conservator of Forests (supra) in the following observations : “............. This principle has been subsequently followed by the Supreme Court in Chief Conservator of Forests (supra) in the following observations : “............. In lis dealing with the property of a State, there can be no dispute that the State is the necessary party and should be impleaded as provided in Article 300 of the Constitution and Section 79 of C.P.C., viz., in the name of the State/Union of India, as the case may be, lest the suit will be bad for non-joinder of the necessary party. Every post in the hierarchy of the posts in the Government set-up, from the lowest to the highest, is not recognised as a juristic person nor can the State be treated as represented when a suit/proceeding is in the name of such offices/posts or the officers holding such posts, therefore, in the absence of the State in the array of parties, the cause will be defeated for non-joinder of a necessary party to the lis, in any Court or Tribunal. We make it clear that this principle does not apply to a case where an official of the Government acts as a statutory authority and sues or pursues further proceeding in its name because in that event, it will not be a suit or proceeding for or on behalf of a State/Union of India but by the statutory authority as such.” 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue relies on the last sentence of the observation. In our view that would not carry the case of the revenue any further because the Divisional Railway Manager was not acting as a statutory authority. Hence, the entire exercise of adjudication which commenced with the notice to show-cause is clearly a nullity. The show-cause notice ought to have been issued against the Union of India through the Ministry of Railways and not against the Divisional Railway Manager who was but an employee and servant of the Ministry of Railways. 7. For these reasons, we find no merit in the appeal which does not raise any substantial question of law. 8. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.