2015 (9) TMI 723 - HC - Central Excise

Dismissal of appeal - non grant of adjournment by the tribunal - principle of natural justice - levy of interest on differential duty due to Inclusion of charity amount known as Mahamai collected at the rate of 1.3% in the value - Held that - the question as to whether there is any liability to pay interest for the period of delayed payment of duty, has not been discussed in detail, more particularly, with regard to the facts in issue - order of the tribunal set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice - matter remanded back - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Violation of principles of natural justice in the Tribunal's final orders
- Error in deciding appeals by a Single Member Bench instead of a Division Bench

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing fireworks falling under Chapter Heading No.3604.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, raised two substantial questions of law. Firstly, questioning the violation of principles of natural justice in the final orders dated 24.01.2014 passed by the Tribunal. Secondly, challenging the decision of the Tribunal to have a Single Member Bench decide the appeals when some were supposed to be heard before a Division Bench.

2. Initially, the Department did not include the charity amount called 'Mahamai' in the assessable value for duty payment. After multiple show cause notices and appeals, the Tribunal allowed the Department's appeals on including 'Mahamai' charges, directing the authorities to calculate duty based on the 'cum duty price' concept.

3. The Department accepted the Tribunal's order, leading to the issuance of 45 show cause notices. The duty was paid before adjudication, resulting in only interest being levied on the differential amount. The penalty was dropped, and the appellant filed 45 appeals as a batch. However, due to non-appearance on the scheduled hearing date, all 12 appeals were dismissed by the Single Member Bench.

4. The appellant contended that they had requested an adjournment, which was not acknowledged by the Tribunal, leading to the dismissal of the appeals. The appellant argued that all 45 appeals should have been considered together to avoid prejudice, as the issue was the same in all cases.

5. The High Court found merit in the appeals, noting that the Tribunal had not adequately discussed the liability to pay interest for delayed duty payment. The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order due to the violation of natural justice and remanding the matter to the Tribunal.

6. Consequently, the Court allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, overturning the Tribunal's final order and remanding the case for further consideration. The appellant undertook not to seek further adjournments, and the Tribunal was directed to schedule a hearing, with the appellant's cooperation, preferably in October 2015. The original records were to be returned to the Tribunal for the appeals' disposal.