2017 (3) TMI 295 - HC - Central Excise

With a view to enable the appellants/assessee to move the Tribunal, the Revenue should not initiate any steps to recover the taxes by coercive means - it is well-settled that it is not for this Court to guess as to how the assessee proceeded, what points the assessee s representative pressed and what was given up and whether at all the Tribunal failed to take any of them into consideration or omitted to make a reference to them.

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure of the Tribunal to address two propositions raised by the appellants.
2. Whether the High Court can speculate on the approach taken by the assessee during the Tribunal proceedings.
3. Appellants seeking rectification of alleged mistakes in the Tribunal's order.
4. Request for a stay on coercive measures by the Revenue to allow time for rectification application.
5. Decision on the appeal and the direction given regarding recovery of taxes.

Analysis:

1. The judgment addressed the issue of the Tribunal's failure to address two propositions raised by the appellants during the proceedings. The Court emphasized that it is not within its purview to speculate on the approach taken by the assessee or the Tribunal's handling of the contentions. The Court advised the appellants to seek rectification of any alleged mistakes directly from the Tribunal.

2. The Court clarified that the proper course of action for the aggrieved litigants is to first approach the Tribunal for rectification of any errors in its order. The appellants agreed to withdraw the appeal and indicated their intention to file an application for rectification. The Court made it clear that any such application would be evaluated on its own merits and in accordance with the law.

3. Upon the appellants' decision to withdraw the appeal and pursue rectification, a request was made for a stay on coercive measures by the Revenue to allow time for the rectification application to be filed. The Revenue opposed the request, citing the lapse of time since the impugned order. After hearing both sides, the Court directed that the Revenue should refrain from initiating coercive measures to recover taxes, granting the appellants time to approach the Tribunal.

4. The Court's direction to stay coercive measures was given without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both parties. This decision aimed to facilitate the appellants in moving the Tribunal for rectification while ensuring that the Revenue's interests were also acknowledged. The appeal was consequently disposed of based on the parties' agreement and the Court's directions regarding the recovery of taxes.

In conclusion, the judgment of the Bombay High Court focused on procedural aspects, emphasizing the proper channels for rectifying errors in Tribunal orders and balancing the interests of both parties involved in the appeal.