2023 (5) TMI 182 - AT - Central Excise

Non-discharge of duty liability on gold jewellery sold by them after affixing certain characters on the product - improper interpretation of brand name - HELD THAT - It would appear from the facts and circumstances that the adjudicating authority was doubtlessly compelled by the insistence of the noticee for disposal of the dispute but that is no defence for not considering the judicial precedent referred to by the noticee in response to the show cause notice. The decision of the Tribunal in COMMR. OF C. EX., RAIPUR VERSUS ANOPCHAND TRILOKCHAND JEWELLERS P. LTD. 2017 (2) TMI 1301 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , despite having been admitted by the Hon ble Supreme Court, cannot, in the absence of disposal thereof or any stay pending such disposal, be ignored by adjudicating authorities merely for that reason. It is not open to the adjudicating authority to describe the decision of the Tribunal as flawed merely from challenge mounted, even if on such lines, before the Hon ble Supreme Court. The response of Larger Bench of the Tribunal to the reference would find suitable fitment within the issues for appellate resolution before the Division Bench. The true perspective of the decision of the Larger Bench would be available only then. In the absence of such closure, it did not behave the adjudicating authority to proceed without awaiting that. The matter remanded back to the original authority for decision on merit.

Summary

Issues:
Confirmation of demand of central excise duties, imposition of penalty, interpretation of 'brand name' in relation to gold jewellery, consideration of judicial precedents, reference to Larger Bench of Tribunal, procedural fairness and natural justice.

Confirmation of Demand of Central Excise Duties:
The appeal challenged the confirmation of demand of central excise duties amounting to Rs. 9,38,53,940 under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, along with interest and penalty. The issue arose from the non-discharge of duty liability on gold jewellery sold after affixing certain characters, which the Central Excise authorities deemed as manufacture under chapter 71 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The adjudicating authority proceeded with the dispute despite objections and references to conflicting decisions, leading to the appeal against the order-in-original dated 8th October 2020.

Interpretation of 'Brand Name' in Relation to Gold Jewellery:
The adjudicating authority relied on notes in the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 to define 'brand name' as an article of jewellery with the brand name indelibly fixed or embossed on it. The appellant contested the authority's dismissal of a Tribunal decision based on the interpretation of 'brand name,' emphasizing that the authority should have considered the judicial precedent cited by the appellant in response to the show cause notice.

Consideration of Judicial Precedents:
The appellant argued that the Tribunal decision in question, despite being admitted by the Supreme Court, should not have been ignored by the adjudicating authority without disposal or pending stay. The authority's description of the Tribunal decision as flawed due to a challenge before the Supreme Court was deemed inappropriate. The authority proceeded with the matter without awaiting the outcome of a reference to a Larger Bench, which could impact the case's resolution.

Reference to Larger Bench of Tribunal:
The authority's decision to conclude the proceedings without awaiting the outcome of a reference to a Larger Bench was criticized for not considering potential developments that could influence the case. The response from the Larger Bench was deemed crucial for appellate resolution, and the matter was remanded back to the original authority for a decision on merit after the appeal in a related case was decided by the Tribunal.

Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice:
The judgment highlighted the importance of procedural fairness and natural justice, emphasizing the need for transparency in administrative functions. Delays in adjudication without proper notice to parties were considered breaches of natural justice, hindering the parties' ability to respond adequately to show cause notices. The judgment underlined the necessity for parties to be informed if notices are being kept in abeyance, allowing them to safeguard evidence and challenge reasons for delays.

In conclusion, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back for a decision on merit after considering the outcome of the related appeal, emphasizing the significance of awaiting the resolution of pending references for a fair and just adjudication.