2009 (12) TMI 742 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appellant's grievance regarding the law not followed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Whether the order suffered from legal infirmity.
3. Relief granted on penalty and the Revenue's appeal against it.

Issue 1: Appellant's grievance regarding the law not followed by the Commissioner (Appeals):
The Appellant contended that the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and other decisions was not followed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the order dated 24-12-2008. The Appellant argued that the Commissioner's observation on the duty liability during forfeiture period was contrary to the established legal precedents. The Appellant sought the expunging of the portion of the order that deviated from the law laid down by the above decisions. The Appellant's plea was based on the argument that if the conflicting observation was removed, there would be no grievance left. The Appellant emphasized the need to adhere to the legal principles established by previous judgments.

Issue 2: Whether the order suffered from legal infirmity:
The Tribunal acknowledged that while courts typically do not entertain appeals on academic questions, an order that deviates from legal principles and lacks judicial discipline cannot be sustained. The Tribunal recognized the importance of expunging any portion of the order that contradicted the established law. It was highlighted that failure to rectify such legal infirmities would perpetuate illegality. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to expunge the part of the order that stated duty during the forfeiture period should be discharged through account current. By doing so, the Tribunal aimed to uphold the integrity of the legal framework and ensure adherence to established legal principles.

Issue 3: Relief granted on penalty and the Revenue's appeal against it:
The Tribunal noted that the relief granted on penalty was not challenged by the Revenue in their appeal. The Joint CDR submitted that the appeal was primarily to address an academic question, rendering it infructuous in light of the relief on penalty not being contested. The Tribunal disposed of the appeal with the observation that the relief on penalty was not under dispute, emphasizing the limited scope of the appeal and the primary focus on addressing the legal infirmity in the order related to duty liability during forfeiture period.

In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed the Appellant's grievance regarding the deviation from established legal principles, expunged the conflicting portion of the order to rectify the legal infirmity, and noted the uncontested relief on penalty in the context of the Revenue's appeal. The judgment focused on upholding legal discipline and ensuring consistency with prior legal precedents.