2007 (7) TMI 270 - HC - Central Excise

Excess payment of duty - Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the tribunal to consider the report of the cost accountant and then to dispose off by the appeal in terms of the grounds raised in the appeal - order of Supreme Court of remanding the case to tribunal was not limited to any specific term of remand therefore, if appellant raise content ion that there was excess payment, tribunal is bound to frame the question and answer the issue appeal before HC is maintainable

Summary

Issues: Appeal pertaining to valuation, substantial questions of law, maintainability of appeal, excess payment contention, remand order consideration, limitation issue, setting aside impugned order, remand to Tribunal.

The judgment by the High Court of Bombay dealt with an appeal where the respondent objected to its maintainability, arguing that it pertained to valuation. The appellant framed questions of law indicating an excess payment even after adding the scrap sale price to the component value, referencing a Supreme Court order appointing a Cost Accountant. The Court found that the substantial questions raised did not solely relate to valuation, making the appeal maintainable. The respondent cited a Supreme Court judgment regarding the determination of customs duty or goods' value, but the Court concluded that the issue of valuation did not arise in this case, rejecting the objection. The Court highlighted that the Tribunal failed to address the appellant's contention of excess payment, emphasizing the need for proper framing and answering of issues based on the arguments presented.

Regarding the remand order, the respondent contended that only the valuation report by the Cost Accountant was left for consideration, implying no need to address the current issue. However, the Court interpreted the Supreme Court's remand order as requiring a comprehensive review based on the accountant's report and the grounds raised in the appeal, leading to allowing the appeal. The Court also noted that the Tribunal had decided against the appellant on a limitation issue without proper consideration, directing a fresh hearing on this matter. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Tribunal for a new hearing and decision in accordance with the law, leaving all contentions open and deciding no costs to be awarded.