2018 (6) TMI 1350 - HC - Central Excise

Rectification of Mistake - order passed without application of mind - parallel remedy for the same cause of action - Held that - The order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained and has to be set aside for the reason that the Tribunal has not applied its mind and decided the appeals, but mistakenly passed a cryptic and non-speaking order in the appeals, which arose from the order dated 6-1-2004 made in Orders-in-Appeal Nos. 6 and 7/2014 (M-1) - appeal stands allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against a Miscellaneous Order.
2. Availing CENVAT credit on inputs and capital goods.
3. Show Cause Notices for CENVAT credit taken on inputs not used in final products.
4. Orders passed by Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise confirming demands and imposing penalties.
5. Appeals before Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequent dismissal.
6. Appeals before Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal leading to dismissal.
7. Rectification Petition filed by the appellant.
8. Appellate Tribunal's dismissal of appeals based on a wrong premise.
9. Misconception of seeking parallel remedy before the High Court.
10. Rectification of the Appellate Tribunal's order sought by the appellant.
11. Setting aside the Appellate Tribunal's order and remitting the matter for fresh consideration.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing additives for lubricating oil, availed CENVAT credit on excise duties paid on inputs and capital goods. Show Cause Notices were issued for discrepancies in CENVAT credit accounts, alleging shortages of inputs not used in final products. Orders were passed confirming demands and imposing penalties by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise. Appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals) and Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal were unsuccessful, leading to a Rectification Petition and subsequent dismissal. The Appellate Tribunal's dismissal was based on a misconception of seeking parallel remedies before the High Court, which was clarified by the appellant. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order, remitting the matter for fresh consideration within three months, emphasizing the need for a proper judicial review and decision-making process.