2015 (11) TMI 675 - HC - Central Excise

Validity of order of tribunal allowing the appeal of the assessee while deciding the stay application - Denial of CENVAT Credit - whether the services which have been availed of could be said to be input services within the meaning of Rule 2(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that - In certain matters and depending upon the agreement between the parties, the Tribunal may dispose of an Appeal finally at the stage of hearing of stay application or while disposing of and deciding the stay application. However, beyond that, the Tribunal is not expected to pass a cryptic order and by not assigning cogent and satisfactory reasons for its conclusion. It is too well settled to require any reiteration that appeal is a creature of the statute. A right of Appeal would confer in a litigant so as to enable the litigant to assail the original order on law and facts. The Court of Appeal is therefore expected to apply its independent mind and not endure same finding or conclusions in the original order. - it is difficult for the higher Court then to find out as to what prevailed with the appellate authority in reaching a particular conclusion. In the present case, when we were taken through the definition of the term input service and the facts in the present case, that we found that none of these aspects have been considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal merely proceeds on the footing that being an exporter, all services have been availed of during the course of export of goods and that is how this CENVAT Credit was admissible. The impugned order is therefore quashed and set aside. The order of CENSTAT shall be treated as confined and restricted to the stay application. It will be held that the assessee has made out a strong prima facie case for grant of an unconditional stay, but beyond that the Appeal cannot be said to be finally disposed of by the impugned order. - Decided in favour of revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Challenge to the order passed by the Customs Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Disposal of the appeal without consent of the Revenue.
3. Interpretation of "input services" under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
4. Requirement of detailed reasoning in appellate orders.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to Tribunal's Order
The appeal challenges the order passed by the Customs Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, where the respondent filed an appeal against the Commissioner of Central Excise. The Tribunal disposed of the appeal finally, leading to the current challenge. The appellant argues that the disposal of the appeal lacked the consent of the Revenue, raising a substantial question of law regarding the manner of disposal without discussing rival cases adequately.

Issue 2: Disposal Without Consent of Revenue
The appellant contends that beyond the stage of considering the stay application, there was no agreement on the disposal of the appeal. The Tribunal's decision to dispose of the appeal without thorough discussion and consent of both parties raises concerns about the legality and fairness of the process, emphasizing the importance of consent in appellate proceedings.

Issue 3: Interpretation of "Input Services"
The main issue revolves around whether the services availed, such as commission of export sales, bank charges, and aviation charges, qualify as "input services" under the CENVAT Credit Rules. The definition of "input services" encompasses services used directly or indirectly in relation to manufacturing final products. The appellant argues that the services in question do not fall within this definition, challenging the Tribunal's decision to set aside the adjudication order.

Issue 4: Requirement of Detailed Reasoning
The judgment emphasizes the necessity for appellate authorities to provide detailed and reasoned decisions. Quoting legal precedents, it highlights that an appeal is a judicial examination of the original decision, requiring independent analysis of facts and legal provisions. The Tribunal's cryptic order without cogent reasons is critiqued, stressing the need for thorough deliberation and clear reasoning in appellate orders to ensure fairness and transparency in the adjudicatory process.

In conclusion, the High Court quashed the impugned order, emphasizing the inadequacy of the Tribunal's disposal of the appeal. The Court directed the restoration of the appeal to the Tribunal for proper consideration in accordance with the law, underscoring the importance of detailed reasoning and independent analysis in appellate proceedings.