2016 (9) TMI 127 - AT - Central Excise

Validity of Commissioner (A) order - Commissioner (Appeals) could have given a finding on merits based on available evidence but remanded the matter further to the Assistant Commissioner - non-compliance of remand direction of CESTAT - Held that - the action of the Commissioner (Appeals) is fully unjustified and beyond the scope of remand directions given by the Tribunal. The impugned order expressed total helplessness in performing a judicial work. The Jurisdictional Authorities have contributed to such unfortunate situation. Without further dwelling upon the impropriety or the sustainability of the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) it is necessary that the finding on the merit has to be arrived at in this case in the interest of justice. The inability of Commissioner (Appeals) to appreciate and implement the directions of the Tribunal in their remand order by itself should not lead to closure of all proceedings. Appreciating this position, I find the matter has to reach a finality by a fresh decision by the Jurisdictional Original Authority who will examine all evidences keeping in mind the remand order already passed by the Tribunal and pass a fresh order within two months of the receipt of the order. - Appeal allowed by way of remand

Summary

Issues: Correctness of the impugned order remanding the appeal to Assistant Commissioner for decision in terms of CESTAT final order.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the denial of Modvat credit by the appellants on HTS Wires purchased from a specific supplier. The initial order confirmed the denial of credit and imposed a penalty on the appellant. Subsequent appeals led to a remand order by the Tribunal directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to examine all evidence and pass a fresh order.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) issued the impugned order remanding the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner without fully examining the evidences as directed by the Tribunal. The appellant argued that the remand order was contrary to the Tribunal's direction and lacked legal sustainability. The Assistant Commissioner's involvement was deemed beyond the scope of the original remand, and the appellant requested a final opportunity for the Original Authority to decide based on all evidence.

3. Upon review, the Member (Technical) found the Commissioner (Appeals)'s action unjustified and beyond the remand directions. The impugned order was criticized for expressing helplessness in performing judicial work. It was noted that the Jurisdictional Authorities contributed to the situation, and a fresh decision on merit was deemed necessary in the interest of justice. The inability of the Commissioner (Appeals) to implement the Tribunal's directions should not halt proceedings, leading to the decision that the matter must be concluded by the Jurisdictional Original Authority within two months.

4. The judgment set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal by way of remand for a fresh decision by the Jurisdictional Original Authority. The Authority was instructed to examine all evidence, consider the previous remand order, and provide the appellant with an opportunity to present their case before issuing a new order. The aim was to bring finality to the matter and ensure a just decision based on all available evidence.