2014 (3) TMI 8 - SC - Central Excise

Reversal of CENVAT Credit - removal of goods against CT-3 certificate without payment of duty - High Court relied on decision of MANAKSIA LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., KOLKATA-IV 2007 (5) TMI 93 - CESTAT, KOLKATA and has not recorded any reason - Held that - said order had been overruled by a larger Bench of the Tribunal in Lakshmi Automatic Loom Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy 2008 (10) TMI 57 - CESTAT CHENNAI - Unfortunately, the above aspect of the matter had not been brought to the notice of the High Court when the High Court had passed the impugned order - In the above circumstances, we quash and set aside the order passed by the High Court and remand the matter to the High Court with a request to the High Court to decide the matter afresh, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of this order by hearing the concerned advocates afresh, without giving any undue adjournments to either of the parties - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved: High Court's reliance on Tribunal's order without considering subsequent overruling; Quashing of High Court's order; Remand of the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration.

In this case, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of the High Court's reliance on a Customs Excise and Service Tax Tribunal's order without taking into account a subsequent overruling by a larger Bench of the Tribunal. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court did not provide any reasons for its decision but heavily leaned on the Tribunal's order, which had been challenged. The Tribunal's order in question, based on "Manaksia Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV," was overturned by a larger Bench in "Lakshmi Automatic Loom Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy." The Supreme Court emphasized that this critical information was not brought to the High Court's attention during the initial proceedings.

Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the High Court's order and remanded the matter back to the High Court for a fresh decision. The High Court was instructed to reexamine the case, preferably within four months, by allowing both parties' advocates to present their arguments without unnecessary delays. The Supreme Court expressed confidence that the legal counsels in the High Court would cooperate to ensure a speedy resolution of the matter. As a result, the Civil Appeal was allowed with no order as to costs, concluding the judgment.