2019 (8) TMI 1589 - HC - Central Excise

Principles of natural justice - Grievance of the Appellant is that the case of the Appellant was never considered or decided, as discernible from paragraph 28 onwards of the order passed by the Tribunal - HELD THAT - The discussion in paragraph 29 is in respect of the Appeal No. E/50476/2016-Ex DB filed by Shankar Lal Jain, Appeal No. E/50489/2016-EX DB filed by Kailash Chandra Agrawal and Appeal No. E/50491/2016-EX DB filed by Bajrang Lal Jain. These are the cases at the 1st, 3rd and 4th slots/levels mentioned on the top of the face sheet. Paragraph 30 of the order passed by the Tribunal deals with Appeal No. E/50497/2016-Ex DB filed by Rooplaxmi Industries India Pvt. Ltd. which is the 5th case mentioned on the top of the face sheet of the order passed by the Tribunal. There is no discussion with regard to the case of the Appellant anywhere, but for the discussion in respect of the other five appeals. There are considerable force in the submission made by the Appellant to the effect that the common order dated 21-12-2018 passed by the Tribunal cannot be said to be an order in the appeal preferred by the Appellant which is pending for consideration as E/50432/2016-EX DB - the matter requires to be reconsidered only insofar as the appeal of the Appellant is concerned. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 challenging findings of clandestine removal.
2. Tribunal's order upholding Commissioner's findings but failing to address the Appellant's case specifically.
3. Determination of substantial questions of law regarding the Tribunal's order.

Issue 1:
The Appellant challenged the findings of clandestine removal of goods by the Adjudicating Authority, leading to the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal's final order dated 21-12-2018 upheld some findings while making modifications under certain heads, prompting the Appellant to raise concerns about the lack of consideration of their case specifically.

Issue 2:
The Tribunal's order failed to address the Appellant's case specifically, as noted by the High Court. Despite the Appellant's grievance that their case was not considered or decided by the Tribunal, the order primarily discussed other connected appeals, leaving out any substantial discussion or reference to the Appellant's case. The Court acknowledged the absence of any discussion regarding the Appellant's appeal in the common order, leading to the conclusion that the Tribunal's order did not address the Appellant's case adequately.

Issue 3:
The Appellant raised substantial questions of law regarding the Tribunal's order, questioning the reasoning and deliberation behind the decision. The Court examined the questions raised, including the lack of reasoning in the Tribunal's order and the alleged oversight of vital evidence crucial to determining the issues. Additionally, an additional question was raised concerning the sustainability of the judgment without proper reasons or findings. The Court required the Appellant to substantiate the substantial questions of law, leading to a remittal of the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration specifically concerning the Appellant's appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court remitted the matter to the Tribunal for a reconsideration of the Appellant's appeal, emphasizing the need for a specific examination of the Appellant's case and a proper order in accordance with the law. The Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits discussed in the connected appeals, focusing solely on the necessity for the Tribunal to address the Appellant's case expeditiously and appropriately.