2024 (9) TMI 1410 - AT - Central Excise

Challenge to direction that the liability on each and every individual should be fixed separately - HELD THAT - From the operating potion of the order, it can be seen that the liability and recovery of rebate amount Rs. 65,54,595/- was once again confirmed against the Shri Mahesh M Harlalka and Shri Pradip Sharma jointly. It is clearly against the direction of the Tribunal whereby it was directed that the liabilities against each person should be fixed separately. However, the liability of Rs. 65,54,595/- was confirmed jointly on both the aforesaid person. Therefore, the order impugned was passed without following the order of the Tribunal, hence, the same is not sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and matter remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to pass a fresh order fixing liability separately against each person. The appeals are allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority.

Summary

Issues:
- Failure of adjudicating authority to follow Tribunal's direction to fix liability separately for each individual.
- Confirmation of demand jointly and severally against specific individuals contrary to Tribunal's order.

In the present case, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD addressed the issue of the failure of the adjudicating authority to comply with the Tribunal's directive to determine liability separately for each individual involved. The Tribunal noted that in a previous round of appeal, it had ordered that the liability on each person should be fixed distinctly. Despite this clear direction, the adjudicating authority once again confirmed the demand jointly and severally against specific individuals. The Tribunal emphasized that the order did not adhere to its previous directive, rendering it unsustainable. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision to determine liability separately for each person. The appeals were allowed by remand to the Adjudicating Authority.

The Tribunal highlighted that in the earlier round of appeal, it had remanded the matter for a fresh decision with a specific instruction to fix the liability on each individual separately. This directive was based on the principle that confirming demand jointly and severally on various persons is not in accordance with the law. Despite the Tribunal's clear direction, the adjudicating authority in the subsequent proceeding confirmed the demand jointly against the individuals involved. The Tribunal emphasized that this action was in direct violation of its order, which required the liability to be fixed separately for each person. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the Adjudicating Authority to pass a fresh order adhering to the requirement of fixing liability separately for each individual.

The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the fact that the adjudicating authority, in the de-novo proceeding, once again confirmed the liability jointly against specific individuals, contrary to the Tribunal's directive to fix the liability separately for each person. The Tribunal emphasized that the order confirming the demand jointly on the individuals was not in line with its previous order, which clearly stated the requirement to determine liability separately for each person. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was unsustainable and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision to ensure compliance with the directive to fix liability separately for each individual involved.