2019 (10) TMI 368 - HC - Central Excise

Principles of natural justice - When the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that the Respondent had been granted hearing before passing the Order by the Commissioner, whether any direction for remand could have been made? - HELD THAT - The issue is covered in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE GOA AND UNION OF INDIA, AND ORS. VERSUS M/S. TWENTY FIRST CENTURY WIRE RODS LTD., 2019 (8) TMI 1366 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT where it was held that Setting aside the orders of the Adjudicating Authority and consequent remand on the first ground that in one of the matters, on one of the dates, no adjournment was granted to one of the parties, is in our opinion, is not at all a good ground to set aside the orders of the Adjudicating Authority and to remand the matter for fresh consideration. The common Judgment and Order made by the Tribunal is set aside and the Appeals instituted by the Assessees before the Tribunal are restored for fresh consideration, in accordance with law and on their own merits.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for adjudication was justified.
2. Whether minor deviations in the adjudication order could lead to a ground for refund.
3. Whether indulgence could be shown to respondents who have not come out with clean hands.
4. Whether remand can be directed without justifiable reasons.
5. Whether the direction of remand was illegal and perverse.

Analysis:
1. The Appeals challenged a common Judgment and Order by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal), remanding the matters for adjudication to the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's decision but restored the Appeals by the Assessees for fresh adjudication, emphasizing that the Tribunal had not decided the matter on merits initially.

2. The High Court found that the issues raised in the Appeals were covered by a previous Judgment and Order. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's initial decision and directed the Tribunal to reconsider the Assessees' Appeals in accordance with the law, while keeping the merits of the adjudication orders open for evaluation.

3. The Court instructed the Tribunal to dispose of the Assessees' Appeals expeditiously, within six months of the Judgment and Order being filed by the parties. The Standing Counsel for the Commissioner assured that the authenticated copy of the Judgment and Order would be submitted to the Tribunal by a specified date.

4. The Tribunal was directed to issue notices to the Assessees and proceed with the disposal of the Appeals based on their own merits and in compliance with the law. The Appeals were ultimately disposed of with no order as to costs, and all parties were instructed to act based on the authenticated copy of the Judgment and Order.