2018 (11) TMI 357 - HC - Central Excise

Filing of appeal before the tribunal - Reviewing committee of two commissioners - one officer who is in-charge of both the Commissionerates - Held that - On an identical facts, in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS COROMANDEL FERTILIZERS LTD. 2009 (4) TMI 193 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , it was held that where one Commissioner holds charge of two Commissionerates and the Commissioner of the two Commissionerates constitutes the Reviewing Committee, then that one Commissioner holding charge of the two Commissionerates would constitute a committee - the question is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the Respondent-Revenue and against the Appellant-Assessee. Correctness of remand of the matter - remand on the ground that there is no discussion in the 01A by the Commissioner (A), about the admission by the authorized signatory about non maintenance of accounts - remand on a ground which was never raised by the Department in the SCN nor before the adjudicating authority nor before Commissioner (A) but was raised for the first time before the Tribunal and further when the said ground is factually incorrect - Held that - These matters are dismissed as not pressed. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Appeal challenging the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal based on substantial questions of law regarding the competence of an officer, remand of the matter back to the original authority, and raising new grounds before the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. Question (a): The issue raised was whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that an officer holding charge of two Commissionerates could constitute a reviewing committee for decision-making. The Respondent cited a previous judgment where a similar situation was addressed, concluding that one Commissioner overseeing two Commissionerates could indeed form a committee. Therefore, the question was answered in favor of the Respondent-Revenue and against the Appellant-Assessee.

2. Questions (b) and (c): These questions revolved around the Tribunal's decision to remand the matter back to the original authority based on the lack of discussion in the order by the Commissioner and the introduction of new grounds not previously raised. The Appellant's Counsel, upon instructions, did not press these substantial questions of law. As a result, the Court dismissed these questions as not being pursued, leading to no further consideration of these issues.

In conclusion, the Appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, as the substantial questions of law regarding the competence of the officer and the remand of the matter were either resolved in favor of the Respondent or not pressed by the Appellant. The judgment highlighted the importance of legal precedent and the need for parties to actively pursue relevant issues during the legal proceedings to ensure a comprehensive and effective defense or prosecution.