2017 (6) TMI 532 - AT - Central Excise

Scope of SCN - redemption fine - case of assessee is that the order-in-original inasmuch as it did not impose any redemption fine attained finality. The Commissioner (Appeals) had no jurisdiction to decide an issue which was not before him in the revenue s appeal - Held that - The appeal of the revenue was only on re-quantification of duty. No issue on non-imposition of redemption fine was raised. The Commissioner (Appeals) also not passed any order on the imposition of redemption fine - in the second round of remand by the Tribunal to the Commissioner (Appeals), it was not open for the Commissioner (Appeals) to re-open the issue which attained finality in the original order - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Imposition of redemption fine of ?20 lakhs against confiscation of goods without prior challenge
- Jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeals) to decide on redemption fine not raised in previous appeals
- Tribunal's remand order keeping all issues open for Commissioner (Appeals) to decide

Analysis:
- The appeals were against the redemption fine of ?20 lakhs imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) after a remand order by the Tribunal. The appellant contested the imposition of the redemption fine, arguing that it was not challenged by the Revenue in previous appeals, and thus the original order without the fine had attained finality.

- The appellant's counsel highlighted that in the initial order, no redemption fine was imposed, and subsequent appeals by the Revenue did not raise any issue regarding the non-imposition of the fine. The Commissioner (Appeals) also did not address the redemption fine in their order. Therefore, it was argued that the imposition of the redemption fine in the remand proceedings was beyond the Commissioner's jurisdiction.

- On the other hand, the Revenue argued that the Tribunal's remand order allowed the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide on all issues, including the redemption fine. However, the Tribunal's remand order did not specifically mention the redemption fine issue, leaving room for interpretation.

- The Member (Judicial) analyzed the situation and found that the original order did not include a redemption fine, and the Revenue had not challenged this aspect in previous appeals. As a result, the original order without the fine had attained finality. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in imposing the redemption fine in the subsequent proceedings. Consequently, the imposition of the redemption fine of ?20 lakhs was set aside, and the appeals were allowed. Additionally, the Revenue's appeal, involving an amount less than ?10 lakhs, was rejected following the Government's litigation policy.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues of the redemption fine imposition, jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals), and the impact of the Tribunal's remand order on the decision-making process.