2017 (12) TMI 274 - AT - Central Excise

Validity of remand proceedings - case of appellant is that Adjudicating Authority in denovo adjudication should have passed the denovo order not only on re-quantification of demand but also on other issues such as merit, limitation and other issues - Held that - It is observed from the remand order of the Tribunal that the learned Counsel for the appellant categorically stated that issue on merit, limitation etc. may be kept open while remanding the case - since the Tribunal had remanded for re-quantification, at the same time the issue on merit was not decided as Tribunal had not gone on other issues such as merit, limitation etc. It cannot be said the remand is confined to re-quantification and the appellant was not at liberty to raise other issue - matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order on all the issues - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against denovo adjudication order - Remand for re-quantification of demand - Failure to address other issues like merit, limitation - Interpretation of "in accordance with law" - Appellant's right to raise other issues.

Analysis:
The appeal was directed against a denovo adjudication order by the Commissioner, where the Tribunal had initially remanded the matter for re-quantification of demand but failed to address other crucial issues like merit and limitation. The appellant contended that the Adjudicating Authority should have considered all issues, not just re-quantification. The Revenue, however, argued that the remand was specific to re-quantification based on legal precedents. The Tribunal noted that the initial adjudication by the Commissioner had addressed merit, and the appellant had raised issues on merit and limitation, which were not decided upon during the denovo adjudication. The Tribunal emphasized that the remand for re-quantification did not restrict the appellant from raising other issues. The Tribunal distinguished the cited judgment where the assessee had given up their case on merit, unlike the present case. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to pass a fresh order addressing all issues raised by the appellant.

This judgment highlights the importance of addressing all issues raised by the parties during denovo adjudication, even if the remand is specific to re-quantification. The Tribunal clarified that the term "in accordance with law" does not limit the consideration of other issues. The decision underscores the right of the appellant to raise and have all relevant issues decided upon during the adjudication process. The Tribunal's analysis demonstrates a balanced approach in interpreting legal precedents and ensuring a fair and comprehensive resolution of the matter at hand.