2015 (6) TMI 500 - HC - Customs

Demand of EDD - at the instance of the Department, the Appellate Commissioner, while accepting the case of the Department, remanded the matter. - while remanding, he has directed the petitioner to pay EDD equivalent to 5% of the Assessable value - Held that - There is an effective alternative remedy available, as provided under Section 129(A) of the Customs Act, the ultimate conclusion reached by the Appellate Authority directing the petitioner to pay EDD equivalent to 5% of the Assessable value till the issue of the fresh order, in my considered opinion, is not maintainable for the reason that when the matter is remanded back to the file of the Original authority, all the issues are to be adjudicated afresh, without being influenced by any of the observation. While so, viewing the impugned order, direction given to pay EDD equivalent to 5% of the Assessable value, against the petitioner, in my view will prejudice the mind of the original authority while deciding the issue. Therefore, this Court, deleting only that portion of the order directing the petitioner to pay EDD equivalent to 5% of the Assessable value, directs the adjudicating authority to determine the issue after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. - Appeal disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of directing petitioner to pay EDD equivalent to 5% of the assessable value after setting aside the original order.
2. Availability of alternative statutory remedy under Section 129(A) of the Customs Act.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case was whether the Appellate Authority could direct the petitioner to pay EDD equivalent to 5% of the assessable value after setting aside the original order. The petitioner argued that such a direction would influence the merits of the matter when the original authority revisits the issue. The Court acknowledged the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 129(A) of the Customs Act but found the direction to pay EDD inappropriate. The Court held that when a matter is remanded, all issues must be adjudicated afresh without influence, leading to the deletion of the order to pay EDD and a direction for the adjudicating authority to determine the issue fairly.

2. The second issue revolved around the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 129(A) of the Customs Act. The respondents argued for the dismissal of the Writ Petition, citing the availability of this remedy before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal on payment of 10% of the duty demanded. Despite finding merit in this argument, the Court intervened due to the inappropriate direction to pay EDD, emphasizing the need for a fair and unbiased adjudication process. The Court highlighted the importance of not prejudicing the original authority's decision-making process and directed a reconsideration of the issue after giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.

In conclusion, the High Court of Madras addressed the issues raised in the Writ Petition by emphasizing the need for fair adjudication without undue influence. The Court recognized the availability of alternative statutory remedies but intervened to rectify the inappropriate direction regarding EDD payment, ensuring a just determination of the issue at hand.