2019 (3) TMI 1179 - HC - Central Excise

Re-credit of duty - goods returned by the customer - fictitious invoices or not - Non-speaking order - Whether the scrap generated in the hands of the job-worker was not supported by the duty-paid documents involving demand of ₹ 1,10,656/-? - Held that - There is a merit in the submission made on behalf of the Revenue. This as we find that the impugned order of the Tribunal does record the appellant s submissions and only after consideration of the same has come to the conclusion that the issue would require reconsideration by Adjudicating Authority. Therefore, remanded this issue to the Adjudicating Authority. So far as other issues are concerned, we find that the impugned order of the Tribunal merely proceeds to record its conclusion. When an Appellate Authority is in agreement with the lower authority's decision, it does not absolve him to briefly indicate his reasons in the context of the submissions made in the appeal by the party. We find that on the above issues, the impugned order does not record any submissions made by the parties before it. This manner of dealing with an appeal by the Tribunal is not appreciated. The Tribunal is a final fact finding Authority under the Act. It must necessarily record the essence of dispute before it and give its findings on consideration of submissions made in the context of the dispute. It is only when such an exercise is done, the order would be a speaking order. It is only when the conclusions arrived at in the order of the Tribunal passes through the process of apparent reasoning, can it be called a speaking order - the issues are answered in the negative i.e. in favour of the appellant and against the respondent. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Tribunal's order under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the Tribunal's order, raising substantial questions of law regarding duty re-credit, fictitious invoices, duty-paid documents, and levy of duty on destroyed goods. The appellant argued that the Tribunal's order was nonspeaking as it did not consider their submissions, requesting the order to be set aside for fresh consideration. The respondent contended that the Tribunal adequately addressed issue (ii) and upheld the Commissioner's view on other issues, warranting no interference.

Upon review, the Court found merit in the Revenue's submission regarding issue (ii) and upheld the Tribunal's decision to remand it to the Adjudicating Authority for reconsideration. However, the Court criticized the Tribunal for not recording the parties' submissions on issues (i), (iii), and (iv), emphasizing the importance of a speaking order for clarity and fairness. As the Tribunal failed to address these issues properly, the Court ruled in favor of the appellant on these aspects, setting aside the Tribunal's decision and restoring the appeal for fresh consideration with proper reflection of parties' submissions.

The Court highlighted the importance of recording submissions for a fair decision-making process and directed parties to move the Tribunal for rectification only when specific submissions were not recorded. In this case, since issues (i), (iii), and (iv) lacked any recorded submissions, the Court deemed the Tribunal's order flawed and in breach of natural justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's decision on these issues, restoring the appeal for fresh consideration with proper reflection of parties' submissions.

Regarding issue (ii), the Adjudicating Authority had already passed an order post remand, with the respondent filing an appeal to the Tribunal. The appellant was granted the opportunity to request the Tribunal to hear this appeal alongside the issues remanded from the Adjudicating Authority. Ultimately, the Court disposed of the appeal in the mentioned terms, addressing each issue raised by the parties comprehensively.