2007 (8) TMI 166 - AT - Central Excise

Remand by Tribunal by setting aside OIO on condition of pre-deposit of Grave mistake committed by Comm. in keeping the matter pending without taking any steps to re-adjudicate Tribunal is wrong in imposing such conditions Appeal allowed and Comm.(A) is directed to re-adjudicate without delay

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-compliance with remand order for depositing amounts.
2. Legality of Tribunal's direction for pre-deposit.
3. Delay in re-adjudication by Commissioner.
4. Applicability of Section 35F of the Act.
5. Modification of directions and re-adjudication timeline.

Analysis:

1. The Revenue filed an application seeking dismissal of appeals due to non-compliance with the remand order for depositing amounts. The Tribunal had remanded the matter for de novo consideration, directing the appellant to pre-deposit Rs. 50 lakhs. However, the appellants failed to comply, and the Commissioner did not re-adjudicate the matter for over 9 years.

2. The appellants contended, citing legal precedents, that Tribunal's direction for pre-deposit while setting aside the impugned order is not permissible. Referring to judgments from Delhi High Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court, they argued against the legality of such directions.

3. During the hearing, the Revenue sought dismissal of all appeals for non-deposit, while the Counsel for appellants, a BIFR Unit, highlighted their inability to comply due to the unit's status since March 1999. The Counsel emphasized that the Tribunal cannot direct pre-deposit as per recent High Court judgments, urging for modification of directions and timely re-adjudication by the Commissioner.

4. The Tribunal noted the delay in re-adjudication by the Commissioner and the Revenue's belated application, expressing concern over the non-compliance with directions. It was clarified that under the current legal position, Tribunal lacks the authority to direct pre-deposit while remanding a case, making the directions in the Final Orders unenforceable.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appellant's application, modifying the directions for pre-deposit and directing the Commissioner to re-adjudicate within four months. Additionally, instructions were issued to expedite re-adjudication in remanded matters to prevent prolonged delays and avoid the need for time extensions. The Revenue's application seeking modification of Final Orders was dismissed, and the necessary actions were ordered accordingly.