2008 (1) TMI 321 - HC - Central Excise

Commissioner (Appeals), set aside the demand treating as time barred as action of the respondents was bona fide - revenue not raised the limitation ground challenging that finding before tribunal - Apart from that no ground was raised in the appeal memo - There is also no averment in the appeal memo before HC that they had asked the tribunal to grant them leave to raise that ground - since tribunal has noted that a finding of fact has been recorded, revenue appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Merits of the case and limitation period for duty payment.
2. Grounds for appeal and challenges to the tribunal's decision.
3. Application of Rule 10 and the opportunity to raise grounds.

Analysis:

1. The High Court judgment dealt with the appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) decision favoring the respondents on the merits and the issue of limitation for duty payment. The Commissioner found that the demand for duty payment was hit by limitation as the appellants had acted under a bona fide belief and had not suppressed any material information. The Revenue appealed, but as they did not challenge the limitation issue, the tribunal held that the demands were time-barred and dismissed the appeal.

2. The appellants approached the High Court against the tribunal's decision. The Court noted that the questions of law were raised in the appeal memo. The appellants argued that they should have been given an opportunity to raise the grounds related to the limitation issue. However, the Court found that there was no mention of seeking such an opportunity in the appeal memo filed before the High Court. The Court referred to a Supreme Court judgment where it was held that even if a ground was not raised, an opportunity could have been given. In this case, the Court observed that the appellants did not challenge the factual finding of bona fide action by the respondents, and no ground was raised in the appeal memo regarding the limitation issue.

3. The Court further analyzed the application of Rule 10 and the opportunity to raise grounds. It was noted that the tribunal did not find it necessary to go into the merits of the case as the limitation issue was not challenged. The Court emphasized that for the tribunal to exercise its suo motu powers or discretion under Rule 10, the matter must go to the root of its jurisdiction. Since no opportunity was sought before the tribunal to raise the limitation issue, the Court concluded that the question did not arise, and the appeal was dismissed.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the tribunal's decision based on the failure to challenge the limitation issue and the lack of grounds raised by the appellants. The judgment highlighted the importance of raising relevant issues in appeals and seeking opportunities to present arguments effectively.