2018 (11) TMI 1457 - HC - Central Excise

Non-speaking order - Validity of remand of the case - Held that - Admittedly, the legal issues on which the case would be decided on merits, even after remit, would be the same as has been decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Vandana Global 2018 (5) TMI 305 - CHHATTISGARH, HIGH COURT - Therefore, there is no point in remitting the matter back to the Tribunal for decision afresh as the case would involve the same structural steel items which were subject matter of decision making by the Division Bench in the matter of Vandana Global - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal's non-speaking order hindering judicial review warrants remitting the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision.
2. Whether the subject goods, including structural steel items, fall within the meaning of capital goods or input.

Analysis:
Issue 1:
The counsel for the Revenue argued that the Tribunal's non-speaking order obstructs judicial review, citing precedents from Coordinate Benches. However, the court acknowledged the importance of reasoned orders for judicial review but noted that the issue of whether structural steel items are capital goods or input had been settled in a previous case by a Coordinate Bench. This previous decision concluded that structural steel items qualify as inputs for availing CENVAT Credit. The court highlighted that the legal issues to be decided post-remit would remain the same as those already addressed in the previous case. Consequently, the court deemed it unnecessary to remit the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision due to the settled nature of the core issue.

Issue 2:
The court recognized that the issue of whether structural steel items are considered capital goods or input had already been conclusively settled in a prior case. The court referenced the precedent set by a Coordinate Bench, which determined that structural steel items are to be treated as inputs for CENVAT Credit purposes. Given this established legal position, the court dismissed the appeal, stating that the matter had already been decisively addressed in the previous judgment. The court emphasized that the decision in the current appeal aligns with the ruling in the prior case involving the same subject matter, leading to the dismissal of the appeal based on the settled legal position.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, citing the settled legal position established in a prior judgment regarding the classification of structural steel items as inputs for availing CENVAT Credit. The court determined that there was no need to remit the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision, as the core issue had already been conclusively addressed in the previous case. The dismissal was based on the alignment of the current appeal with the legal principles established in the earlier judgment, leading to the decision that the appeal did not warrant further consideration or remittance.