2015 (8) TMI 1174 - HC - Central Excise

Duty demand - Validity of Tribunal s order - Tribunal remanded matter back to Commissioner - Held that - Both sides conceded that recording of reasons by this Court may tantamount to expression of opinion either way. They do not therefore insist on any reasons being assigned. The Tribunal shall now re-hear the Appeal of the Assessee on merits and in accordance with law - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Tribunal's direction to Commissioner to re-examine invoices and duty liability.
3. Dispute regarding the Tribunal's decision to remand the matter back to the Commissioner.
4. Substantial question of law on the Tribunal's decision to send the matter back.
5. Quashing of the impugned order and directions for re-hearing the appeal on merits.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to an appeal against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai, in Appeal No. E/384/2009-Mum. The High Court entertained the appeal directed against this order.

2. The Tribunal had directed the Commissioner to re-examine all the invoices provided by the appellants and determine duty liability without considering certain declarations. Both sides did not dispute this position. The High Court questioned the Tribunal's decision to remand the matter back to the Commissioner, especially since the issue had been adjudicated thrice before. The Court emphasized that the duty liability should have been ascertained based on the available material.

3. The High Court considered the substantial question of law whether the Tribunal was justified in sending the matter back to the Commissioner on a limited issue. By the consent of both parties, the Court quashed the impugned order and set it aside. The Court directed the Tribunal to re-hear the appeal on its merits and in accordance with the law, allowing both sides to present their submissions and produce necessary statements and certificates.

4. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the rival contentions and disposed of the appeal accordingly, without imposing any costs. The judgment emphasized the need for a fair re-hearing of the appeal, ensuring that both parties have the opportunity to present their arguments and evidence without influence from previous orders or opinions.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment focused on addressing the procedural irregularities in the Tribunal's decision and ensuring a fair re-hearing of the appeal on its merits, emphasizing the importance of ascertaining duty liability based on the available material and legal considerations.