2018 (11) TMI 303 - HC - Central Excise

Validity of remanding the appeal - the appeal was pending for 11 years before the Tribunal - Held that - This grievance has no merit as the delay was only on account of the appellant s appeal awaiting its turn before the Tribunal - However, unless the parties invite the attention of the Tribunal that the issue is covered, no occasion would arise for the Tribunal to have any knowledge of the same. In this case, no application was filed by the Appellant for early hearing by pointing out that the issue is covered by its earlier order. This delay was only in view of the appeals awaiting its normal turn for consideration - the grievance of delay in disposing of the appeals by the Tribunal has no merits and is not accepted. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to common order of Tribunal under Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Questions of law regarding remand of proceedings and applicability of a judgment. Delay in disposal of appeals. Need for remand in the present case. Expectation of completion of re-adjudication.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenges a common order by the Tribunal disposing of 33 appeals and 7 miscellaneous applications originating from a 2006 order by the Commissioner (Adjudication). The appellant raises questions regarding the remand of proceedings by the Tribunal after a delay of 11 years and the applicability of a previous judgment.

2. The 2006 order held the appellant not entitled to an exemption under Notification No.1 of 1995, demanding duty and imposing penalties. Appeals by other parties were disposed of in 2009, leading to applications for implementation. The Tribunal's 2017 order remanded proceedings for fresh disposal by the Adjudicating Authority.

3. The appellant's grievance of delay in remanding proceedings was dismissed as the delay was due to the appeal awaiting its turn. The Tribunal's remand was justified, considering a similar remand in a previous case. The Tribunal's decision was based on consistency and precedent, not warranting the applicability of a specific judgment.

4. No substantial question of law arose in the case, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. However, concerns were raised about the delay in re-adjudication, with the Tribunal expecting completion by a specified date. The Revenue assured the appointment of a common Adjudicating Authority within eight weeks.

5. The appeal was ultimately dismissed with no order as to costs, emphasizing the need for timely re-adjudication.