2019 (6) TMI 198 - HC - Central Excise

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal committed an error by not even considering the argument specifically made in written submissions that extended the period of limitation cannot be invoked in view of the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Prayagraj Dyeing Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd., v/s. Union of India 2013 (5) TMI 705 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ? HELD THAT - Perusal of the impugned judgment and order dated 19th January, 2018, and a copy of the written submissions annexed as Exh. H to the appeal shows that the Tribunal has not even adverted to the contentions raised in the written submissions. Once the written submissions are taken on record by the Tribunal, it was the duty of the Tribunal to deal with the contentions raised in the written submissions. The question of law as framed will have to be answered in favour of the Appellant and against the Respondent.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Consideration of extended period of limitation based on written submissions not addressed by the Tribunal.

Analysis:

1. Consideration of Extended Period of Limitation:
The appeal was admitted based on the substantial question of law regarding the Tribunal's failure to consider the argument related to the extended period of limitation as per the decision of the Gujarat High Court. The Court noted that the written submissions were on record but were not addressed by the Tribunal in its judgment. It was emphasized that once written submissions are taken on record, it becomes the Tribunal's duty to deal with the contentions raised in them. Consequently, the Court found in favor of the Appellant, stating that the impugned order should be set aside, and the appeal remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in light of the judgment's discussion.

2. Judgment and Order:
Upon perusal of the impugned judgment and the written submissions, the Court found that the Tribunal had not considered the contentions raised in the written submissions. Therefore, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 19th January, 2018, restoring the appeal to the file of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai. The Court also kept all contentions on merits open and partly allowed the appeal.

3. Order of the Court:
In the final order, the Court explicitly mentioned the actions to be taken, including quashing the impugned order, restoring the appeal to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, and allowing the appeal partly. The Court's decision was based on the failure of the Tribunal to address the written submissions and consider the argument regarding the extended period of limitation, as raised by the Appellant. This comprehensive analysis highlights the Court's meticulous examination of the issues involved and the subsequent directions provided in the judgment.