2018 (8) TMI 1392 - HC - Central Excise

Manner in which the learned Tribunal has disposed of the appeals - matter decided pending appeals - Held that - The procedure adopted by the learned Tribunal disposing of the appeals without deciding the same on merits with liberty approach the Tribunal after decision of this Court in the pending appeal is neither correct not proper and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. The impugned common order passed by the learned Tribunal is hereby quashed and set aside and the appeals are restored to the file of the learned Tribunal and to avoid any further multiplicity of proceedings /appeals before this Court, it is directed that the appeals on remand be kept pending till the decision of this Court in the case of Essar Steel India Ltd. 2016 (6) TMI 1305 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide on merits.
2. Application of subsequent notification on the definition of 'input service' retrospectively.

Analysis:
1. The appeals involved a common question of fact and law, challenging the Tribunal's decision not to decide on merits but to dispose of the appeals with liberty to approach the Tribunal after another pending case's decision. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal should have decided the appeals on merits based on previous court decisions favoring the Revenue. The respondent-assessees argued that the issue of retrospective application of a subsequent notification could impact the decisions and should be considered pending a related case's judgment. The High Court disapproved of the Tribunal's approach, stating that it should have either decided on merits or kept the appeals pending, instead of disposing of them with liberty to approach after another case's decision.

2. The High Court found that the Tribunal's disposal of the appeals without deciding on merits or keeping them pending would cause inconvenience to both the Revenue and the assessee. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal should have considered the binding court decisions favoring the Revenue but also acknowledged the potential impact of the retrospective application of the subsequent notification. As a result, the High Court quashed the Tribunal's order, set it aside, and directed the appeals to be restored to the Tribunal's file, with instructions to keep them pending until a related case's decision. This decision aimed to avoid further multiplicity of proceedings and ensure a more appropriate handling of the appeals.

3. The High Court allowed the appeals partly, emphasizing the importance of a decision in the related case and directing the Revenue to file for an early hearing date for that case due to its direct bearing on the pending appeals. This comprehensive analysis of the issues and the Court's decision highlights the importance of proper consideration and handling of appeals based on legal precedents and pending related cases to ensure fair and efficient resolution of tax matters.