9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 12 - HC - Central ExciseValidity of tribunal order - CESTAT dismissed the appeal of the appellant / assessee on monetary ground - Section 35 (c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Whether the second respondent is right in depriving the appellant the statutory right as provided under Section 35 (c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944? - Held that - On more than one occasion, the Hon ble Supreme Court and this Court, held that the reasons are the heart beat of any decision. Dismissal of the appeal, without adverting to the facts, grounds of appeal is also not appreciated by the Hon ble Supreme Court. Whether the second respondent is right in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant by issuing an order mentioning that they do not consider it productive to invest time by the Tribunal while there is huge pendency involving crores of rupees and revenue and therefore, this appeal with minor demand of duty levied? - Held that - Dismissal of the appeal, on the sole ground that there is a huge pendency involving crores of rupees of revenue and adjudication of lis involving a minor demand of duty of ₹ 7,42,297/- would not be productive, is a failure to exercise the jurisdiction conferred on CESTAT, Madras, both of facts and law. In terms of Section 35 b of the Central Excise Act, the appellant is certainly an aggrieved person by the orders impugned before CESTAT, Madras. Dismissal of appeal cannot be approved - matter restored - decided in favor of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the second respondent is right in depriving the appellant the statutory right as provided under Section 35 (c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Whether the second respondent is right in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant by issuing an order mentioning that they do not consider it productive to invest time by the Tribunal while there is huge pendency involving crores of rupees and revenue and therefore, this appeal with minor demand of duty levied. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deprivation of Statutory Right under Section 35 (c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944: The appellant argued that the dismissal of their appeal by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on the grounds of minor duty demand violated their statutory rights under Section 35 (c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court referenced the decision in Roots Multiclean Ltd. v. CESTAT, Chennai, which clarified that the Tribunal has discretion to refuse appeals involving amounts less than two lakhs rupees unless the issue pertains to the valuation or rate of duty. The court emphasized that the Tribunal must admit appeals related to valuation disputes regardless of the amount involved. The court concluded that the Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction correctly, thus depriving the appellant of their statutory rights. 2. Dismissal of Appeal Due to Pendency and Minor Demand of Duty: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal citing the minor demand of ?7,42,297/- and the significant backlog of cases involving larger sums. The court criticized this rationale, emphasizing that reasons are the heartbeat of any decision, as established by the Supreme Court in multiple cases. The court cited several precedents, including M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. STO, Rourkela-I Circle & Ors., and Kranti Associates Private Limited v. Masood Ahamed Khan, which underscored the necessity of reasoned orders, especially in quasi-judicial proceedings. The court held that the Tribunal's dismissal without addressing the facts and grounds of the appeal was improper and constituted a failure to exercise its jurisdiction. Conclusion: The court found the Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of minor duty demand and backlog of cases to be unjustified. It emphasized the importance of reasoned decisions and the statutory rights of the appellant. Consequently, the court allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, set aside the Tribunal's final order, and directed the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal expeditiously within two months. The substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the assessee, and no costs were imposed.
|
