2018 (1) TMI 372 - HC - Central Excise

Principles of Natural Justice - non-speaking order - Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in remanding the case back to the adjudicating Authority to decide the case afresh without having dealt with the appellant s contention that the issue was covered in the appellant s own case by the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 24th August, 2015? Held that - impugned order merely records the appellant s contention that the issue is covered by the earlier order of the Tribunal but thereafter, it is not dealt with the earlier order dated 24th August, 2015 to show in what manner the same would not apply to the two appeals, which were before the Tribunal leading to the impugned order dated 28th October, 2015 - this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, PuneI Vs. Syntel International Pvt. Ltd., 2015 (7) TMI 887 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT has taken a view that though the appellate Authority has power of remand, the same should not be exercised routinely and as a matter of course. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging a common order passed by the Tribunal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1940 regarding valuation rules and duty demands for two units.

Analysis:
The appeals challenge a common order passed by the Tribunal setting aside the Commissioner's orders for two units engaged in manufacturing. The Revenue demanded duty based on Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2000, while the appellant argued for Rule 4 valuation. The Tribunal remanded the case for fresh adjudication, ignoring the appellant's contention that a previous order favored their case. The Tribunal's decision was questioned on grounds of lack of findings on facts and law, leading to a non-speaking order.

The appellant argued that the Tribunal overlooked its earlier order favoring the appellant's position, which was based on similar facts and law. The Revenue contended that no substantial question of law arose as the Tribunal merely remanded the issue for fresh adjudication due to lack of findings by the adjudicating authority. However, the High Court found the Tribunal's order to be non-speaking and lacking in reasons for remand, contrary to established principles.

The High Court held in favor of the appellant, setting aside the Tribunal's order and remanding it for fresh consideration. The Court emphasized the need for the Tribunal to justify its conclusion, even if it decides that remand is necessary. The appellant agreed to pay any outstanding duty within a specified timeframe. Both appeals were disposed of with no order as to costs.