2017 (9) TMI 452 - HC - Central Excise

Scope of SCN - Whether the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi was right in taking a contrary view in two identical cases covered by same show cause notice? - Held that - the language of notice in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur Vs. Sarada Steel Industries Pvt. Limited 2010 (7) TMI 596 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI and that of respondent is same. Therefore Tribunal was not justified in taking a view otherwise than what has already been taken in Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur Vs. Sarada Steel Industries Pvt. Limited, without referring matter to larger Bench - issue decided in favor of appellant and against Assessee. Whether Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 is self contained as the same is already subject to provisions of Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944? - Held that - it is subject to provision of Section 11AC of Act, 1944, mere non- mention of Section in a particular order or notice by itself will not render the same bad, if otherwise all ingredients are satisfied - matter remanded to Tribunal to restore the appeal. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of Revenue and part matter on remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 in relation to Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Consistency in the interpretation of legal provisions by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The appeal raised questions regarding the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's interpretation of Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 and its relation to Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant argued that the Tribunal had taken contradictory views on identical cases covered by the same show cause notice. The Tribunal's decision was deemed illegal as it did not invoke Section 11AC of the Act, 1944, despite Rule 25 being subject to it. The Tribunal's failure to consider its earlier decision and the requirement to refer the matter to a larger Bench for a different view were highlighted. The judgment in a related case was cited to support the argument for consistency in interpretation.

2. The judgment in Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur Vs. Sarada Steel Industries Pvt. Limited was analyzed to understand the facts of the case. The dispute involved discrepancies in stock records and allegations of clandestine removal. The original authority ordered confiscation and imposed penalties, which were later set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal, leading to the Department's appeal. Arguments from both sides were presented, focusing on the method of stock verification and justification for confiscation. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the order of confiscation and penalty was challenged, emphasizing the importance of accurate record-keeping and the presumption of clandestine removal. The Tribunal's decision was ultimately partly allowed, modifying the redemption fine and penalty amounts.

3. The High Court found that the language of the notice in the present case was the same as in the earlier judgment, indicating a lack of justification for the Tribunal's differing view without referring the matter to a larger Bench. The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the need for consistency in legal interpretations. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision. The Court refrained from expressing a final opinion on the second question regarding Rule 25 of the Rules, 2002, but highlighted its subjectivity to Section 11AC of the Act, 1944. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and directed a fresh decision in accordance with law, thereby partly allowing the appeal.