2018 (6) TMI 920 - AT - Central Excise

Scope of remand order - The Commissioner instead of limiting himself to the issue remanded, treated the CESTAT order as full remand order and has gone into the issue which were not referred to him in remand - Held that - The only thing that the Commissioner was required to check was if the endorsement appears on those challans or not. There is no finding in the order of Commissioner regarding availability of endorsement on the challans pertaining to ₹ 14 lakhs of duty. He has gone into the entire show-cause notice and decided the issue afresh as a full remand. The impugned order is not sustained as it goes beyond the scope of remand. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner to decide the issue limiting himself to the scope of remand - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order confirming demand and imposing penalty.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by M/s. Blue Star Ltd. against an order confirming a demand of ?75,45,059/- and imposing a penalty of ?75 lakhs. The appellant's counsel argued that this was the third round of litigation, and in the previous Tribunal order, the issue was settled, and the matter was remanded for a limited purpose. However, the Commissioner exceeded the scope of the remand by delving into issues not referred to him. The specific issue for which the remand was made was not examined by the Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner relied on the impugned order, but the Tribunal found that the Commissioner had gone beyond the scope of remand. The Tribunal referred to the previous order dated 02.08.2007, which specified that the Commissioner was required to verify whether an endorsement appeared on certain challans. Since there was no finding regarding the availability of the endorsement on the challans pertaining to ?14 lakhs of duty, the Commissioner's decision was deemed to exceed the scope of remand. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner to decide the issue within the limited scope of the remand.

This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to the scope of remand orders and not exceeding the specific issues referred for reconsideration. It emphasizes the need for Commissioners to focus on the precise matters remanded to them and not broaden the scope of their examination beyond what was directed by the Tribunal. The decision serves as a reminder of the principles governing remand proceedings and the necessity for judicial officers to strictly adhere to the parameters set by higher authorities.