2016 (4) TMI 1111 - HC - Central Excise

Appellant submitted that by inadvertence, the matter could not be contested properly before the Tribunal - Held that - whether it was inadvertence or not is itself a question of fact requiring inquiry and fixation of responsibility. It would have been appropriate for the Appellant to have first fixed responsibility for those who did not act in the best interest of the Revenue, taken administrative action against them and then have filed this appeal. The appeal has remained pending since 15.6.2015 and has been adjourned on several occasions. The Revenue has had more than sufficient time to do its home work and soul searching for fixation of responsibility but none appears to have been done. Therefore we decline to take up the appeal for consideration on merits at this stage and require the appellant to first display their bona fides by holding an inquiry, fixation of responsibility by way of appropriate punishment to the concerned in accordance with law only whereafter we shall take up the present appeal. - Adjourned for 2 months

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether iron ores fines emerging from the process of crushing and screening are leviable to excise duty.
2. Whether the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was sustainable.
3. Whether the High Court should consider appeals involving substantial questions of law under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act.

Issue 1:
The main issue in the case revolved around determining the liability of iron ores fines to excise duty arising from the process of crushing and screening. The adjudicating authority held that if the process resulted in both dutiable and exempted products, there was a liability to pay 10% of the value of the exempted products. The Commissioner (Appeals) disagreed, stating that the emergence of iron ores fines cannot be considered a separate manufacturing activity. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the lack of grounds raised by the Revenue to challenge the previous decisions. The High Court highlighted the legislative procedure under the Central Excise Act, emphasizing the finality intended at the Tribunal stage.

Issue 2:
The second issue focused on the sustainability of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue, in its appeal before the Tribunal, failed to provide substantial grounds to challenge the previous decisions. The High Court noted the lack of proper contestation by the Revenue at earlier stages, emphasizing the duty of departmental representatives to protect the Revenue's interests diligently. The Court highlighted the importance of following the complete procedure outlined in the Central Excise Act, from adjudication to appeals, to ensure matters are resolved effectively and efficiently.

Issue 3:
The final issue addressed by the High Court pertained to the consideration of appeals involving substantial questions of law under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act. The Court emphasized that Section 35G was not intended to serve as another avenue for general litigation but rather as a mechanism to address significant legal matters. The Court expressed concern over the Revenue's failure to contest matters properly before the Tribunal and stressed the need for accountability within the department. Consequently, the Court declined to consider the appeal on its merits until the Appellant demonstrated bona fides by holding an inquiry and fixing responsibility within the department.

In conclusion, the judgment delves into the intricacies of excise duty liability concerning iron ores fines, underscores the importance of following procedural requirements under the Central Excise Act, and highlights the significance of addressing substantial legal questions judiciously to ensure the effective administration of justice.