2014 (5) TMI 566 - HC - Central Excise

Rebate - Quantum of refund - Export of watches and clocks - Jurisdiction of tribunal to grant refund - Held that - It appears that from the beginning, the stand of the Department had been that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction for this case falls essentially under proviso (b) to Section 35B(1) of the Act and that stand had also been upheld by the Tribunal when it chose to dismiss the appeal ex parte on 21st June, 2005 and later on, when the present opponents made a request for restoration, it had recalled its earlier order and later on decided the matter on merit against the Department. And therefore, both the orders would have an effect of merging and even if there is no separate challenge made by the Revenue, that may not deprive the Department from raising such an issue at this stage with this effect - On examination of the material clearly it appears essentially a question of refund of rebate and not of the duty as sought to be argued - issue since pertains to rebate, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide the questions raised.
2. Applicability of exemption Notification No. 10/2003-C.E. to exported goods.
3. Applicability of Standards of Weights & Measures Act, 1976 to exported goods.
4. Justifiability of the Tribunal's decision to hear the appeal despite jurisdictional issues.

Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal:
The primary issue in this case revolved around the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide the questions raised. The appellant argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal due to proviso (b) to Section 35B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the question involved the payment of duty concerning the export goods under a specific notification. The Court examined the history of the Tribunal's decisions, noting that the Tribunal had initially dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction but later reconsidered based on the nature of the dispute. Ultimately, the Court held that since the issue pertained to a rebate, not duty, the Tribunal indeed lacked jurisdiction to decide the matter. Consequently, the appellant succeeded in establishing the lack of jurisdiction, leading to the disposal of the Tax Appeal.

2. Exemption Notification Applicability:
One of the substantial questions raised was the applicability of Notification No. 10/2003-C.E. to goods exported out of India. The Tribunal had to determine whether the notification applied to the goods exported or not. However, the Court did not delve into this issue extensively as the jurisdictional matter took precedence in the analysis. The Court's focus remained on whether the Tribunal had the authority to address the questions raised, leading to a decision in favor of the appellant based on jurisdictional grounds.

3. Standards of Weights & Measures Act Applicability:
Another question raised was whether the Standards of Weights & Measures Act, 1976 could be made applicable to goods exported out of India. This issue was not extensively discussed in the judgment due to the overriding concern regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The Court primarily addressed the jurisdictional aspect and refrained from delving into the substantive issues related to the applicability of specific acts to exported goods.

4. Justifiability of Tribunal's Decision:
The final issue raised was the justifiability of the Tribunal's decision to hear the appeal despite jurisdictional challenges. The appellant argued that the Tribunal should not have decided on the merits of the case when the jurisdictional issue was unresolved. The Court, after a thorough examination of the Tribunal's actions and the nature of the dispute, concluded that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction due to the rebate nature of the issue. Consequently, the Court upheld the appellant's contention, leading to the successful disposal of the Tax Appeal in favor of the appellant.

In conclusion, the judgment primarily focused on the jurisdictional aspect of the case, determining that the Tribunal lacked the authority to decide on the matter due to the nature of the issue being related to a rebate rather than duty. The Court's decision in favor of the appellant was based on the lack of jurisdiction, highlighting the importance of procedural compliance in legal proceedings.