2018 (10) TMI 576 - HC - Customs

Principles of Natural Justice - cross-examination not granted - Whether the Tribunal right to hold that since the order of not granting cross-examination goes to route of the matter, this Tribunal sets aside the letter No. S/1030/ 201617/ CAC/NS-III/ Comm/JNCH dated 06.10.2016 with a direction to adjudicating authority to grant cross-examination as sought by the assessee and decide the matter after following principles of natural justice without appreciating various authorities decisions? Held that - We would expect the Respondent to file Appeal after considering all aspects and not file Appeals as a matter of ritual and withdraw it when it comes up for hearing before the Court. This indicates the most casual manner in which the Revenue is filing Appeals from the orders of the Tribunal to this Court. This non filtering of orders which need to be challenged, leads to numerous appeals being filed which are without merit. In the present facts, we would have expected the Commissioner to have been more careful before having filed this Appeal. However, we give him the benefit of doubt, that filing of this Appeal was a bonafide mistake and accept his unconditional apology. We hope that he and the other Commissioners of Customs would apply their minds, to the orders of the Tribunal before filing Appeals to higher forums. The Appeal is allowed to be withdrawn.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Infructuous nature of the appeal due to the impugned order being implemented by the Adjudicating Authority.
3. Lack of standard operating procedure for filing appeals from tribunal orders.
4. Concerns regarding the casual manner in which appeals are filed by the Revenue.
5. Unfettered discretion of the Commissioner in deciding to file appeals.
6. Need for a standard operating procedure to ensure appeals are filed after due consideration.
7. Withdrawal of the appeal and directions to inform all relevant authorities.

Analysis:
1. The High Court addressed an appeal challenging the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's order. The issue raised was whether the Tribunal was correct in not granting cross-examination, leading to the matter being remanded to the Adjudicating Authority. The Court noted the appeal's infructuous nature as the Adjudicating Authority had already confirmed the show cause notice against the Respondent, making the appeal seem like an attempt to harass the Assessee.

2. The Court expressed concerns over the lack of a standard operating procedure for filing appeals from tribunal orders, highlighting the need for a more structured approach. The Revenue's casual filing of appeals without due consideration was criticized, emphasizing the importance of filtering out appeals without merit to avoid wasting judicial time.

3. The unfettered discretion of the Commissioner in deciding to file appeals was noted as a potential cause for filing futile appeals, leading to harassment of the Assessee. The Court urged for more careful consideration before filing appeals and accepted the Commissioner's apology in this case, hoping for improved decision-making in the future.

4. In light of the issues raised, the Court recommended the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs to establish a standard operating procedure for filing appeals. This procedure should ensure that appeals are filed only after thorough consideration by the relevant authorities, similar to the practice in Direct Tax matters, to prevent unwarranted appeals and streamline the process.

5. Ultimately, the Court allowed the appeal to be withdrawn and directed the Counsel for the Revenue to inform all Commissioners of Customs and relevant authorities about the decision. Additionally, the Registry was instructed to serve a copy of the order to the Chairman of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs for further action and awareness.