2022 (8) TMI 845 - HC - Customs

Over invoicing - fraudulent claim of duty drawback - Power to remand the case to collector - validity of remanding the proceedings to the respondent to decide on the issue of limitation, when neither the appellant nor the respondent requested for remand of the proceedings - failure to exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon it under section 129B of the Customs Act in not deciding the appeal on the grounds raised by the appellant and remanding the proceedings to the respondent - HELD THAT - It needs to be clarified that although the present appeal was filed by the appellant in this Court on 17th September 2021, it had been listed before this Court for the first time on 27th July 2022, when the matter could not be taken up due to paucity of time, by which time, in any case, the Commissioner of Customs (Export Promotion) had already passed the order dated 6th October 2021 upon remand. Since there was no order passed in the present appeal staying the operation of the order impugned, the mere fling of the appeal or its pendency before this Court would thus by itself not be a legal impediment for passing the order dated 6th October 2021 upon remand. The directions having been already carried out and a detailed view having been already expressed by the original authority, in case the matter is considered in appeal by the Tribunal, it would have the benefit of the views expressed on the issues on which the matter stood remanded - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeals under section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) regarding limitation issues.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Remanding the Proceedings to Decide on the Issue of Limitation
The High Court considered whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in remanding the proceedings to decide on the issue of limitation without a request from either party. The Court analyzed if the Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction under section 129B of the Customs Act by not deciding the appeal on the grounds raised by the appellant and remanding the proceedings to the respondent. The Court also examined if the Tribunal was justified in not deciding the question of limitation and remanding the proceedings when factual aspects were already on record.

Issue 2: Background and Material Facts
The case involved a show cause notice issued regarding over invoicing and fraudulent duty drawback claims. The Commissioner confirmed the demands raised in the notice, leading to appeals before the CESTAT. The appellants argued that the show cause notices were time-barred based on duty drawbacks sanctioned years earlier. The CESTAT set aside the Commissioner's order, citing lack of consideration of the limitation issue and the need for examination.

Issue 3: Tribunal's Decision and Appellant's Arguments
The Tribunal found no record of the limitation issue being considered by the adjudicating authority and remanded the matter for examination. The appellant argued that the Tribunal should have decided the limitation issue itself, relying on previous judgments emphasizing the Tribunal's duty to analyze evidence and reach conclusions. The appellant stressed the importance of finality in matters concerning public revenue.

Issue 4: Outcome and Conclusion
The High Court noted that the Commissioner had already passed a final order upon remand, rendering the issue moot. The Court clarified that the mere pendency of the appeal did not impede the Commissioner's decision. Despite the delay in listing the appeal, the Court found no legal impediment to the Commissioner's order. The Court dismissed the appeals, stating that the Tribunal had the benefit of the views expressed on the remanded issues, and interfering with the orders was unwarranted.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeals, emphasizing the importance of finality in matters concerning public revenue and noting that the Tribunal had the benefit of the views expressed on the remanded issues. The Court found no legal impediment to the Commissioner's decision upon remand and declined to interfere with the orders.