2014 (9) TMI 242 - HC - Central Excise

Waiver of pre-deposit - principle of natural justice - valuation of goods transferred to another unit - revenue neutrality - extended period of limitation - basis for calculation of overhead percentages - Imposition of penalty - Held that - Tribunal was required to consider the issues raised in the Appeal in depth and render a complete finding. If a particular issue was pressed or was given up that should be indicated in the order of the Tribunal. We would expect the Tribunal, which is manned by both judicial and technical experts, to be aware of the seriousness of the adjudication and not take up the assignment lightly and casually. There is no specific target which has to be achieved nor could the Tribunal be expected to decide particular number of appeals during a calender year. Therefore, undue haste is not at all called for. That results in miscarriage of justice and in a given case would result in vital issues of both sides being concluded in most unsatisfactory manner. We would expect the Tribunal to guide the Adjudicating Authorities so that they would properly adjudicate the cases with reasoned orders and after considering the evidence on record. It is this duty of the Tribunal which has been repeatedly emphasized and to be performed to the best of its ability. - Matter remanded back to tribunal - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Appeal challenging Tribunal's order, waiver of pre-deposit condition, revenue neutrality, demand confirmation, calculation of overhead percentages, Tribunal's disposal of appeal, Tribunal's duty to consider issues in depth, substantial questions of law.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenges the Tribunal's order on a dispute regarding excise duty. The Appellant sought waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of taxes pending the appeal, which was partially granted. The issues raised included revenue neutrality, time bar on demand confirmation, and calculation of overhead percentages.

2. The Appellant contended that the Tribunal disposed of the appeal in a perfunctory manner, not adequately considering the submissions made. The Tribunal confirmed the demand for excise duty, which was challenged by the Appellant. The Tribunal's order lacked detailed reasoning, prompting the Appellant to question the decision.

3. The Revenue argued that the Tribunal's ultimate conclusion was correct, focusing on the form rather than the substance of the order. The Tribunal's decision was defended as valid, albeit lacking elaborate reasoning. The Appellant's dissatisfaction with the Tribunal's order was countered by asserting the sufficiency of the decision.

4. The High Court observed discrepancies in the dates mentioned in the orders and emphasized the importance of thorough consideration by the Tribunal. The Tribunal was expected to provide comprehensive findings on the issues raised, guiding the Adjudicating Authorities effectively. The Court highlighted the significance of reasoned orders and proper adjudication.

5. Substantial questions of law were admitted by the Court for consideration, including the correctness of production costs calculation, revenue neutrality, time bar on demand, and the Tribunal's handling of the appeal. The Court decided to remand the case back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for a thorough review of the matter.

6. The impugned order of the Tribunal was quashed, and the appeal was restored for a fresh decision. The Tribunal was instructed to reconsider the case without influence from the previous order. Both parties were given the opportunity to present their arguments fully, and the Tribunal was urged to expedite the process due to the appeal's age. The interim order was to remain in effect until the Tribunal's final decision.