2018 (8) TMI 2121 - HC - Central Excise

Validity of remand order - Appellate Tribunal made prima facie findings / observations while remanding the matter without expressly stating that all questions of law and fact are left open on remand. Appellant seeks that the adjudicating authority will decide the issue in accordance with law without being influenced by the prima facie observations. HELD THAT - The impugned order of Tribunal has admittedly used the word prima facie it seems . Thus it is not a final view of the Tribunal. It further goes on to state that to ascertain status of the Appellant the facts would have to be ascertained in context of the bills and invoices raised by services provider, treatment of payment transaction etc. and only thereafter the application of judgments to the facts existing in this case could arise - This would indicate that the prima facie view of the Tribunal is a tentative view subject to examination of the facts. Therefore, the prima facie observations would not per se influence the adjudicating authority. The question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained - Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding remand and prima facie observations.

Analysis:

1. The appeal challenges the order of the Tribunal remanding the dispute to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs. The Appellant's concern lies with certain prima facie observations made in the impugned order, fearing they might influence the adjudicating authorities to their prejudice. The Appellant seeks a decision in accordance with the law without being swayed by these observations.

2. The Tribunal's order used the term "prima facie," indicating a tentative view subject to further examination of facts related to bills, invoices, and payment transactions. The Tribunal clarified that the prima facie observations are not final and would not inherently impact the adjudicating authority. However, to address the Appellant's concerns, the High Court directed the adjudicating authority to decide the issue in accordance with the law, treating the Tribunal's observations as tentative and subject to change based on a thorough examination of the facts.

3. The High Court concluded that the proposed question did not raise any substantial question of law and, therefore, did not entertain it. The appeal was disposed of with directions for the adjudicating authority to consider the issue independently, disregarding the prima facie observations of the Tribunal.

This judgment clarifies the role of prima facie observations in tribunal orders, emphasizing their tentative nature and the need for the adjudicating authority to make decisions based on a thorough examination of facts and in accordance with the law, independent of such observations.