2011 (5) TMI 104 - AT - Central Excise

Order - Aspects of passing the order - impugned order should have demonstrated the position of law for drawing a conclusion - the cases of the past are specifically taken care by the statutory provision by section 97 of the Finance Act 2007 Bringing an amendment to sub-section (1) of section 11A - Such provision is of safeguard in nature and that is made applicable from 17.11.1980 - Perusing first appellate order itself, a man of ordinary prudence and diligence may view that a quasi-judicial authority shall not decide a matter in vacuume - This is the case where an order in vacuum has been passed without the law being considered - Hence, remand the matter to the ld. Appellate Authority to deal the matter afresh issuing notice to the assessee.

Summary

Issues: Lack of clarity in the order passed by the First Appellate Authority

In this case, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, examined an appeal where the order passed by the First Appellate Authority lacked clarity regarding the dispute at hand. The Tribunal observed that the impugned order failed to clearly determine the issue, state the reasons for the decision, and exhibit the decision itself, as required by law. The Tribunal noted that the order only briefly mentioned the facts without providing a clear understanding of the dispute. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the appellate authority clearly defining the issue, providing reasoning, and making a conclusive decision. The lack of clarity in the order led the Tribunal to remand the matter back to the First Appellate Authority for a fresh consideration after issuing a notice to the assessee.

The Judge in the case highlighted the significance of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which deals with the determination of duty not levied or paid or short-levied or paid or erroneously refunded. The Judge noted that the statutory provision under Section 11A, as amended by the Finance Act, 2007, specifically addresses cases from the past. The Judge emphasized that this provision serves as a safeguard and has been in effect since 17.11.1980. The Judge supported the argument made by the JCDR regarding the necessity for the impugned order to clearly demonstrate the legal position for reaching a conclusion. Additionally, the JCDR referenced a Supreme Court order in the case of ITW Signode India Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise to highlight that curative legislation may have retrospective application.

The Tribunal further emphasized that a quasi-judicial authority should not decide a matter in a vacuum. It was noted that the first appellate order was passed without due consideration of the law, indicating a lack of proper legal analysis. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the First Appellate Authority for a fresh consideration, directing the authority to deal with the matter afresh after issuing a notice to the assessee. This decision was made to ensure a proper examination of the legal aspects and a clear determination of the dispute in accordance with the law.