2018 (2) TMI 395 - HC - Central Excise

Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in allowing the appeal preferred by the assessee holding that the Revenue could not have applied the extended period of limitation? Held that - Mr. R. Santhanam, Advocate, who appears for the respondent, fairly states that the Tribunal had relied upon an earlier decision in the case of the assessee, which has been reversed by the Allahabad High Court with an order of remand - In view of the statement made by Mr. R. Santhanam, Advocate, we are setting aside the impugned order with a direction for remand, without commenting on merits - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application of extended period of limitation by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Reliance on overruled judgment by the Tribunal.
3. Entitlement to CENVAT credit of additional customs duty paid through DEPB receipts.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Application of extended period of limitation
The main issue in this case revolved around whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in allowing the appeal by the assessee, holding that the Revenue could not have applied the extended period of limitation. The appellant cited a decision from the Allahabad High Court where the Tribunal's judgment in favor of the respondent assessee was set aside. It was noted that the impugned order of the Tribunal merely quoted from the overruled judgment, indicating a reliance on outdated legal reasoning. The respondent's counsel acknowledged that the Tribunal had based its decision on a prior judgment that had been reversed by the Allahabad High Court. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed a remand for a fresh examination of the issue without being influenced by the previous observations.

Issue 2: Reliance on overruled judgment
The Tribunal's reliance on an overruled judgment was a critical aspect of the case. The respondent's counsel admitted that the Tribunal had based its decision on a previous ruling that had been reversed by the Allahabad High Court. This acknowledgment led to the High Court setting aside the impugned order and ordering a remand for a fresh examination of the matter. The decision emphasized the importance of not being influenced by outdated legal precedents and ensuring that judgments are based on current and relevant legal principles.

Issue 3: Entitlement to CENVAT credit
Another significant issue in the case was the entitlement of the respondent assessee to CENVAT credit of additional customs duty paid through Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) receipts. The respondent's counsel expressed no objection to setting aside the impugned order with a direction for remand to examine the question of the assessee's entitlement to CENVAT credit. Both parties agreed that the issue should be re-evaluated without being influenced by the previous order or relying on outdated legal judgments. The High Court clarified that the matter would be examined afresh, and the appeal was disposed of without any order as to costs.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment addressed the issues of the application of the extended period of limitation, reliance on overruled judgments, and the entitlement to CENVAT credit. The decision highlighted the importance of ensuring that legal judgments are based on current legal principles and not influenced by outdated precedents. The case was remanded for a fresh examination of the issues, emphasizing a fair and unbiased evaluation of the matter.