9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 1615 - HC - Central ExciseWhether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law to dispose the Appeal as file closed, when there is no provision under Section 35-C (1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 to close the appeal for statistical purposes without going into merits? HELD THAT - In terms of Section 35-C (1) of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal may, after giving parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against. The Tribunal may also refer the case back to the authority which passed such decision or order with such directions, as the Appellate Tribunal may think fit, for fresh adjudication or decision, after taking additional evidence, if necessary. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal with a direction to the Tribunal to await the decision, which is now pending before the High Court at Ahmedabad in the case of HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER 2012 (7) TMI 1072 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT .
Issues:
- Appeal filed under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai. - Tribunal's decision to close the appeal without deciding on the merits. - Interpretation of Section 35-C (1) of the Act. - Referral of the matter to the Larger Bench of the Tribunal. - Remanding the matter for fresh adjudication. Analysis: The appeals were filed by the Revenue challenging the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai. The key issues raised in the appeals were related to the Tribunal's decision to close the appeal without delving into the merits of the case. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in closing the appeal without following the provisions of Section 35-C (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which allows for confirmation, modification, or annulment of the decision appealed against. The Tribunal's reasoning for closing the proceedings due to the issue being pending before the Larger Bench of the Tribunal was deemed unjustified by the High Court. The High Court highlighted that the Tribunal had the option to either keep the matter pending until a decision was reached by the Larger Bench or remand the case for fresh adjudication. However, the Tribunal failed to exercise either of these options, leading the High Court to intervene and set aside the Tribunal's order. The Court cited a similar case where the matters were remanded to the Tribunal for proper consideration. The High Court emphasized the importance of following due process and ensuring that cases are dealt with in accordance with the law. The appellant pointed out that a Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Ahmedabad had passed an order regarding a similar matter, indicating that the issue was pending before the High Court at Ahmedabad. The Larger Bench had disposed of the reference, granting liberty to the parties to return after the final verdict from the High Court. Consequently, the High Court directed the Tribunal to await the decision pending before the High Court at Ahmedabad and remanded the matter for further consideration. The substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the Revenue, and no costs were imposed in this regard.
|
