2016 (12) TMI 759 - AT - Customs

Doctrine of res-judicata - appellant s grievance is that once the matter reached to finality by the appellate order dt. 13.6.85 (nearly 31 years ago) and all illegalities have been done by the department, no proceeding at all survived - Held that - Law is well settled that repetitive litigation on the self-same cause is to be avoided following doctrine of resjudicata. Appellant s prayer is therefore justified to set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal emerging out of adjudication made on the basis of SCN dt. 6.8.85 as is apparent from the factual matrix set out herein before. It is very painful to state that the assesse has been dealt to the detriment of justice from 1984. We also inform to the adjudicating authority that the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Lanvin Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI 2015 (8) TMI 387 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT has noticed that any undesirable delay made by the adjudicating authority to reduce litigation makes his order fatal - We observe that the order dated 31.08.2005 passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was in excessive exercise of his jurisdiction to the utter dis-regard to law. Therefore, that is set aside. The matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority with the directions to complete the re-adjudication afresh by March, 2017 - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Repeated litigation by the Revenue on the same cause.
2. Validity and legality of the show cause notices (SCNs).
3. Classification of imported goods under the correct Customs Tariff Heading (CTH).
4. Adherence to principles of natural justice in adjudication.
5. Compliance with appellate authority's directions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Repeated Litigation by the Revenue:
The appellant challenged the continuous litigation by the Revenue on the same cause, alleging different tactics at various times. The Tribunal noted that repetitive litigation on the self-same cause is to be avoided following the doctrine of res judicata. The Tribunal found the appellant's prayer justified and set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal emerging from the proceedings initiated by the SCN dated 6.8.1985.

2. Validity and Legality of the Show Cause Notices (SCNs):
The initial SCN issued on 29.5.1984 was unsigned, leading to objections from the appellant. A signed SCN was subsequently issued on 16.6.1984, followed by a supplementary SCN on 12.10.1984. The Tribunal observed that the issuance of multiple SCNs and the subsequent adjudication orders were arbitrary and lacked a firm ground, as noted by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the order dated 13.06.1985. The Tribunal emphasized that the adjudicating authority should have re-adjudicated the matter as directed by the appellate authority instead of issuing a fresh SCN on 6.8.1985.

3. Classification of Imported Goods:
The core issue was the correct classification of the imported goods. Initially classified under CTH 84.35, the Revenue sought to reclassify them under CTH 85.15, leading to a differential duty demand of ?38,07,255/-. The Tribunal highlighted that the adjudicating authority's decision to classify the goods under CTH 85.15 was made without proper adherence to the directions of the appellate authority and was thus unsustainable.

4. Adherence to Principles of Natural Justice:
The Tribunal noted multiple instances where the principles of natural justice were violated. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the order dated 13.06.1985 had observed that the lower authority's order suffered from several infirmities, including the failure to provide a firm ground for the SCN, arbitrary decision-making, and lack of opportunity for the appellant to defend themselves effectively. The Tribunal reiterated that the adjudicating authority must provide a fair opportunity for hearing and consider all evidence and submissions made by the appellant.

5. Compliance with Appellate Authority's Directions:
The Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority failed to comply with the directions of the appellate authority as per the order dated 13.06.1985. Instead of re-adjudicating the matter, the authority issued a fresh SCN on 6.8.1985, leading to further litigation. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to re-adjudicate the matter afresh by March 2017, following the directions of the appellate authority and ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the order dated 31.08.2005 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority with specific directions to complete the re-adjudication afresh by March 2017, emphasizing the need to avoid undue delay and ensure justice for the appellant.