2017 (3) TMI 1288 - HC - Central Excise

Jurisdiction of Tribunal - non-compliance of earlier directions issued by this Court - Held that - Once the specific directions had been issued by this Court, which direction has not been shown to have stayed or set aside by the Supreme Court, it was no longer open to the Tribunal to not comply with the same - At any rate, it cannot be accepted that in the matter of statutory appeal the Tribunal vested the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter finally may, while dealing with an appeal duly maintainable before instead of deciding it on merits, wash its hands of it by making observation such as made in instant case- granting liberty to the parties to approach again when the cause of action had clearly arisen in the present and appeal had matured for adjudication - matter remitted for decision afresh - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Issues Involved:
1. Central Excise Appeal under Section 35G against CESTAT's order.
2. Disposal of appeal and granting liberty to approach again.
3. Compliance with earlier directions of the High Court.
4. Tribunal's jurisdiction to dispose of appeal without deciding on merits.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a Central Excise Appeal under Section 35G against CESTAT's order, raising questions of law regarding the disposal of the appeal and granting liberty to approach again after obtaining a final verdict from the Supreme Court. The case involved conflicting opinions by different benches of the Tribunal on the same facts and evidence, causing confusion over liability. The High Court had earlier set aside CESTAT's order and directed it to decide the matter in accordance with law, emphasizing the need for consistency in decisions to avoid adverse effects on business and trade.

2. The Tribunal, upon remittance of the matter by the High Court, did not decide the appeal on merits but disposed of it, leaving the option open for the assessee to approach again after the Supreme Court's final verdict. The High Court, after considering the submissions, found that the Tribunal's failure to comply with the earlier directions issued by the Court was not acceptable. It emphasized that the Tribunal should not avoid deciding on the merits of the matter, especially when the appeal had matured for adjudication, and the cause of action had arisen.

3. The High Court reiterated that once specific directions were issued by the Court, which were not stayed or set aside by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal was obligated to comply with them. It criticized the Tribunal for passing orders that could lead to needless litigation and emphasized the importance of bringing final closure to disputes between parties. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision in compliance with the earlier directions issued by the High Court.

4. The High Court highlighted the importance of expeditiously deciding appeals on merits, especially considering the long list of pending cases before appellate forums like the CESTAT. It emphasized the need for adjudicatory authorities to bring final closure to disputes and avoid actions that could lead to unnecessary litigation. The Court allowed the appeal and directed the Tribunal to decide the matter on merits expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of the order.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the case and the High Court's decision.

← Previous Next →