2014 (6) TMI 1053 - HC - Central Excise

Waiver of predeposit and stay - the tribunal has not assigned any reasons except referring to some judicial pronouncements - HELD THAT - Reliance is placed upon an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THANE-I VERSUS JSW STEEL LTD. 2014 (9) TMI 332 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT where it was held that we have no alternative but to allow this Appeal only on this short, but substantial question of law and that is that the Appeals cannot be disposed merely by recording rival submissions and not discussing them elaborately but, in a perfunctory manner. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against the order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lack of reasons provided by the tribunal in the judgment - Application of judicial pronouncements without considering the facts of the case - Comparison with a previous judgment by the High Court - Quashing and setting aside the impugned order.

Analysis:
The High Court heard an appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise ThaneI against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The tribunal had allowed the appeal filed by the assessee without providing detailed reasons, merely referring to some judicial pronouncements relied upon by the assessee's counsel. The High Court observed that the tribunal failed to consider how these pronouncements applied to the facts of the case. Specifically, the court noted that the facts of the case were not analyzed before applying the ratio of a particular judgment related to Ultratech Cement. This lack of detailed reasoning led the High Court to set aside the tribunal's order in a similar appeal involving the same assessee.

In the previous appeal by the Commissioner against the same assessee, the High Court had already set aside the tribunal's order. The court relied on a judgment by the Division Bench of the High Court in another case to support its decision. Citing similarities in the points involved, the High Court proceeded to quash and set aside the impugned order in the present appeal. The court emphasized that all directions issued in the previous judgment would apply in the current case as well. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and no costs were imposed on either party.