2011 (3) TMI 1362 - SC - Central Excise

Refund claim - conclusions have been recorded by the Tribunal after analyzing the fact that a certificate dated 10-5-2001 issued by the Chartered Accountant was produced before the Adjudicating Authority but subsequently another certificate was produced which is dated 17-6-2002 issued by another Chartered Accountant - High Court held that matter has to be remitted back for fresh and de novo consideratio - parties are also required to be given opportunity to adduce such other materials which may be produced by either of the parties in respect of the disputes between them so as to enable the Tribunal to come to an appropriate finding on all the issues and in respect of all the models, matter remitted to the Tribunal for fresh and de novo adjudication of the entire disputes between the parties relating to all the models manufactured by the Appellant

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against judgment of Karnataka High Court remitting disputes for fresh consideration to Adjudicating Authority regarding refund claim based on duty incidence not passed on to customers. Admissibility and analysis of subsequent certificate dated 17-6-2002 by Chartered Accountant. Whether remand should be restricted to certain models manufactured by the Appellant. Justification of findings by High Court. Consideration of evidence by Tribunal and remand decision.

The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal against a Karnataka High Court judgment that remitted disputes to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration regarding a refund claim. The High Court set aside previous orders and directed the Adjudicating Authority to determine if the duty incidence was not passed on to customers by the Appellant. The High Court's decision was based on the submission of a subsequent certificate dated 17-6-2002 by a Chartered Accountant, which was not available before the Adjudicating Authority but was presented before the Tribunal. The Appellant argued that the 17-6-2002 certificate was a cost analysis of the earlier certificate and not fresh evidence. The Appellant contended that the remand should be limited to models other than the Family Saloon Model, as the dispute regarding this model was settled by the 17-6-2002 certificate.

The respondent's counsel supported the High Court's findings, suggesting reconsideration by the Tribunal instead of remitting the matter to the Adjudicating Authority. The Supreme Court considered the arguments and noted that the Tribunal had indeed considered fresh evidence in the form of the 17-6-2002 certificate. The Court emphasized the need to examine the implications of this certificate along with any other available evidence. Both parties were directed to present additional materials, and the Tribunal was tasked with a fresh and comprehensive adjudication of all disputes related to models manufactured by the Appellant. The Court decided to set aside the previous Tribunal order and allowed the appeal, directing the matter to be remitted to the Tribunal for a new decision.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, remitting the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication in line with the High Court's order. The Tribunal was instructed to consider all evidence on record and any additional evidence that the parties may produce. A timeline of six months was set for the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal promptly. The Court's decision aimed to ensure a thorough examination of all issues and models in dispute, promoting a fair and comprehensive resolution of the matter.