2010 (12) TMI 227 - AT - Central Excise

Demand and penalty - extended period of limitation - penalties against the authorised representative - Commissioner (appeals) decided in favor of assessee on the ground of period of limitation - Held that - the Commissioner(Appeals) without ascertaining as to whether there was default or not inspite of the fact that the same was necessary to be ascertained as the appeals were filed by the respondents against the order passed by the adjudicating authority already holding that the assessee had committed default and on that count had confirmed the demand of duty on that ground and the same was under challenge before him proceeded to dispose of the appeals merely by holding that the department was not justified in invoking the extended period of limitation. Even otherwise it is settled law that first appellate authority has always to decide the appeal by addressing to all the issues raised in a matter. There is no option for the first appellate authority to find out some short-cut methods to dispose of the appeals. Once an issue arises for consideration the first appellate authority has to decide such issue. - Matter remanded back.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeals arising from a common impugned order dated 7.1.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bhopal, regarding the entitlement to invoke the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Invoke Extended Period of Limitation:
The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals based on the sole ground that the department was not entitled to invoke the extended period of limitation. The department contended that the question of limitation can only arise after establishing default by the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that before addressing the issue of limitation, it is crucial to ascertain whether there was any default on the part of the assessee warranting proceedings under the Act. The Tribunal highlighted that the authority must first determine if there was a default by the assessee before considering the delay on the part of the department in initiating proceedings.

2. Commissioner's Disposal of Appeals:
The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of the appeals without conclusively establishing whether there was any default on the part of the assessee. The Commissioner's decision was based on the issuance of show cause notices to the assessee, indicating knowledge of default. However, the Tribunal emphasized that it is essential for the appellate authority to address all issues raised in an appeal. The Tribunal stated that the Commissioner should have determined whether the assessee committed a default before deciding on the extended period of limitation issue.

3. Remand to Commissioner (Appeals):
Considering the above points, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order could not be sustained. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to consider all issues raised in the matter, including the aspect of the bar of limitation, in accordance with the provisions of the law.

In summary, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the necessity of establishing default by the assessee before addressing the issue of the extended period of limitation. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of addressing all issues raised in an appeal and directed a remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a comprehensive reconsideration of the case.