2009 (3) TMI 77 - HC - Central Excise

Tribunal imposing the condition of pre-deposit while remanding the case assessee submit that once the remand order has been passed then no condition of pre-deposit could have been imposed by the Tribunal on the request made by the appellant, the Tribunal has referred the matter back to the original authority because no proper opportunity of hearing was granted held that there is no such bar under Section 35(c) that while referring the case back to the original authority, the Tribunal cannot impose any condition - held that impugned order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of pre-deposit condition by the Tribunal after remand order.
2. Legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.
3. Amount of penalty imposed under Section 11A of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Interpretation of Section 35(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to an appeal filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted the appellant's request for remand due to lack of proper hearing and imposed a condition for the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- within a specified timeframe. The appellant contended that no pre-deposit condition could be imposed post a remand order, citing Section 35(c) of the Act. However, the Court held that the appeal did not warrant admission as the Tribunal's order was not legally flawed, and the condition imposed was not considered a pre-deposit for the fresh hearing by the original authority.

2. The Court observed that the Tribunal's decision to refer the matter back to the original authority was justified due to the lack of proper hearing granted to the appellant. The demand for Custom duty exceeding Rs. 1 crore, along with penalties under Section 11A of the Customs Act, 1962, was noted. The Court emphasized that the amount required to be deposited by the appellant was not a pre-deposit for the fresh hearing. It was concluded that there was no legal bar under Section 35(c) of the Act for the Tribunal to impose conditions while remanding the case, and thus, the appeal was dismissed as it did not raise any substantial question of law.

3. The judgment highlighted the substantial penalty imposed under Section 11A of the Customs Act, 1962, in addition to the demand for Custom duty and other charges. The Court's analysis focused on the legality of the Tribunal's decision to remand the case back to the original authority, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and reasonable opportunity for the appellant. The imposition of penalties and the requirement for a deposit by the appellant were considered within the framework of the legal provisions governing such matters.

4. The interpretation of Section 35(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was a crucial aspect of the judgment, as it determined the Tribunal's authority to impose conditions after remanding a case. The Court clarified that there was no explicit prohibition in the Act preventing the Tribunal from imposing conditions during a remand, thereby upholding the validity of the Tribunal's decision in this case. The analysis underscored the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal provisions in matters involving appeals and remands under the relevant statutes.