2014 (6) TMI 959 - HC - Central Excise

Legality of deposit of 25% of amount for the first time as this question has not been dealt with by the Single Bench - Tribunal while passing interlocutory order under Section 35F had relied upon a decision in the case of Vandana Global Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur reported in 2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB) and directed deposit of 25% of the duty imposed by the assessing officer - Appellant contended that the aforesaid judgment is no longer a good law. As such, the Single Bench has remitted the matter for hearing afresh to the Tribunal directing it to dispose of the application seeking waiver of pre-condition of deposit of duty and to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. The said order remitting the case to the Tribunal to decide the application afresh has been questioned by way of the intra Court appeal. Held that - the decision of Vandana Global Limited which was relied upon by the Tribunal has been set aside. Thus, fresh decision is required to be relied upon and the Single Bench has considered it appropriate to relegate the matter before the Tribunal to decide the application afresh. We cannot take the onus upon ourselves so as to decide the legality of the deposit of 25% of the amount for the first time as this question has not been dealt with by the Single Bench. - Decided against the revenue

Issues involved:
1. Challenge to the order of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
2. Interpretation of an interlocutory order under Section 35F
3. Validity of relying on a previous judgment
4. Remitting the matter for fresh hearing
5. Authority to decide on deposit amount
6. Upholding Single Bench's decision
7. Direction to Tribunal for timely decision

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the challenge to the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which directed the deposit of 25% of the duty imposed by the assessing officer, based on an interlocutory order under Section 35F. The Tribunal's reliance on a previous judgment was found to be no longer valid, leading to the matter being remitted for fresh hearing before the Tribunal by the Single Bench.

2. The Court highlighted that the decision in the case referred to by the Tribunal had been set aside, necessitating a fresh decision to be relied upon. The Single Bench deemed it appropriate to relegate the matter to the Tribunal for a new decision on the application seeking waiver of the deposit pre-condition, emphasizing the need for a reasoned order in accordance with the law.

3. The High Court refrained from deciding the legality of the 25% deposit for the first time, as this aspect had not been addressed by the Single Bench. It was emphasized that the responsibility to determine the legality of the deposit amount rested with the Tribunal, prompting the Court to uphold the Single Bench's decision and direct the Tribunal to decide the application within six weeks.

4. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the intra Court appeal challenging the order of remittal to the Tribunal, leading to the connected application also being dismissed. The judgment concluded by stating that no costs were to be awarded in the matter, thereby bringing closure to the legal proceedings.

← Previous Next →