2018 (10) TMI 1416 - HC - Central Excise

Demand barred by limitation - remand of the matter - Section 35G of the Central Excise Act 1944 - Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority? Held that - The impugned order even does not record whether any of the parties at the hearing urged that the order dated 7th June 2013 of the Commissioner was impossible to understand therefore making it difficult to challenge. It cannot be disputed that in the facts of a particular case the Tribunal may refer/ restore the case to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration. In fact Section 35C of the Act while dealing with the orders of the Tribunal does provide that it may if it thinks fit refer the case back to the authority which passed the order in appeal. However the word may if it thinks fit is not an arbitrary or subjective satisfaction of the Tribunal but a satisfaction reached through the filter of reasons in the context of the grievance of the parties before it - In the impugned order we find that the Tribunal has concluded that the order of the Commissioner in appeal is incapable of understanding without itself referring to the dispute and any part of the finding of the order which are impossible to understand. Therefore although the Tribunal is undoubtedly entitled to remand a matter for fresh consideration the same cannot be at its whim and fancy or mere ispi dixit but a conclusion based on reasons. The substantial questions of law is answered in negative i.e. in favor of the Appellant and against the Respondent Revenue. - Matter restored before tribunal.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to Tribunal's remand order based on lack of reasons and understanding of the dispute.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Lack of Reasons and Understanding in Tribunal's Order
The appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 contested the Tribunal's order remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal remanded the case to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication, finding the Commissioner's order lacking coherence and reasons. The Appellant argued that the Tribunal's order did not address the dispute or the parties' grievances, failing to provide clarity on the issues at hand. The Tribunal's decision to remand a case should be based on valid reasons and not arbitrary discretion. The lack of reasons in the Tribunal's order was deemed unsustainable, as it failed to consider the essential aspects of the case. The Appellant's stance was supported by the requirement for orders to be supported by reasons, as established in legal precedent.

Issue 2: Prejudice Caused by Lack of Reasons in Tribunal's Order
The Appellant contended that setting aside an order without proper reasons could lead to prejudice, as the party in favor of the order would suffer. The Tribunal's decision to remand the case lacked a valid basis, which could impact the rights of the concerned parties. The importance of providing reasons for decisions was highlighted as a fundamental aspect of the rule of law. The lack of clarity and reasoning in the Tribunal's order was seen as detrimental to the fairness and justice of the adjudicative process. The Appellant's argument emphasized the necessity of reasoned decisions to uphold the principles of natural justice and legal integrity.

Issue 3: Quashing of the Impugned Order and Restoration for Fresh Consideration
In response to the Appellant's arguments, the Court quashed the impugned order and restored it to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The decision was based on the finding that the Tribunal's remand lacked sufficient reasoning and understanding of the dispute. The Court emphasized the need for the Tribunal to provide clear and logical justifications for its decisions, especially when remanding cases for further adjudication. The order to remand a case should be grounded in the specific issues raised by the parties and supported by coherent reasons. The Court's ruling aimed to ensure that the adjudicative process adhered to the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

Conclusion:
The judgment highlighted the importance of providing clear reasons for decisions, especially when remanding cases for fresh consideration. The lack of reasoning in the Tribunal's order was deemed unsustainable, leading to the quashing of the order and restoration for a more reasoned decision-making process. The ruling underscored the significance of upholding procedural fairness and legal integrity in the adjudicative process.