2016 (10) TMI 121 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability - appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), namely, the first appellate authority - directing assessee for executing bond for full value and reducing the bank guarantee to be furnished in the sum of ₹ 12,08,625/- for provisional release of seized goods - Held that - during the pendency of this appeal, our attention, in all fairness, has been invited to a Larger Bench judgment and order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in the case of Gaurav Pharma Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Rohtak, Delhi 2015 (326) ELT 561. It is conceded that the legal position is enunciated in this Larger Bench judgment and order and in any event, considering the argument before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, the appeal before the Commissioner of Customs and Excise (Appeals) the first appellate authority was maintainable. - Appeal disposed of

Summary

Issues:
1) Maintainability of the appeal preferred by the assessee before the Commissioner (Appeals).
2) Whether the provisional release order is appealable.
3) Non-maintainability of the appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).

Analysis:
1) The Revenue challenged the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which held that the appeal by the assessee before the Commissioner (Appeals) was maintainable. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals) had directed the assessee to execute a bond for the full value of the seized goods but reduced the bank guarantee amount. The Revenue contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) virtually decided the matter at the provisional release stage, and the second argument was that the provisional release order was not appealable. The tribunal's order did not delve into detailed findings but maintained the appeal's maintainability and modified the Commissioner (Appeal's) order.

2) The court addressed the issue of whether the provisional release order was appealable. The tribunal did not provide detailed reasoning but proceeded on the basis that the appeal before the first appellate authority was maintainable. The Revenue raised the contention of non-maintainability of the appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) for the first time during the proceedings. A Larger Bench judgment of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was cited, confirming the maintainability of the appeal before the Commissioner of Customs and Excise (Appeals).

3) The court considered the arguments presented during the appeal and the precedent set by the Larger Bench judgment. It was acknowledged that no substantial questions of law arose for determination in the current case. The court refrained from examining larger issues and questions, leaving them open for future consideration in an appropriate case. Consequently, the court disposed of the appeal without further examination of the substantive legal issues raised during the proceedings.