2018 (12) TMI 938 - HC - Central Excise

Validity of remand order - Utilization of credit of additional excise duty - Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1975 - principles of natural justice - Held that - We are unable to approve the manner in which the Tribunal has dealt with the appeal before it. There was no further investigation of facts which had to be carried out which could have necessitated remand to the adjudicating authority. When there is no further inquiry necessary to be done, the Tribunal or any appellate authority is not expected to remand the matter to the subordinate authority to decide the issue which the appellant authority can itself decide. It is axiomatic that the orders of this Court are binding upon the Tribunal. In the absence of any higher forum staying the orders of this Court, the Tribunal being an authority within the State of Maharashtra is obliged to follow and implement the decision of this Court. The remand directed by the impugned order of the Tribunal was not justified - substantial question of law is answered in the negative that is in favour of the appellant and against the respondent - appeal restored.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding utilization of credit of additional excise duty under Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1975.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the Tribunal's order remanding the issue of credit utilization despite a previous favorable decision by the High Court. The Tribunal directed the appellant not to use unutilized credit until the Supreme Court decides on a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Revenue. The High Court found the remand unjustified as no further inquiry was necessary. The Tribunal's direction to withhold credit utilization was deemed without jurisdiction, effectively attempting to stay the High Court's order pending the Supreme Court's decision on the SLP. The High Court emphasized that its orders are binding on the Tribunal, and in the absence of a higher forum staying its decision, the Tribunal must implement it. Consequently, the High Court answered the substantial question of law in favor of the appellant, setting aside the Tribunal's order and restoring the appeal for fresh hearing and disposal in accordance with the law.

Conclusion:
The High Court ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the Tribunal's order and restoring the appeal for fresh hearing and disposal. The High Court emphasized the binding nature of its orders on the Tribunal and the obligation of the Tribunal to implement its decisions in the absence of a higher forum staying them.