2020 (9) TMI 79 - HC - Central Excise

Jurisdiction - appropriate forum - Striking down of Rule 96 ZQ of the Central Excise Rules - applicability if same in the facts of present case - HELD THAT - We are not inclined to entertain these submissions unless such submissions have been first raised before the learned Tribunal and the same have been dealt with by the Tribunal in appropriate manner by reasoned order thereon. Though the learned counsel for the respondent Assessee also raised a plea before us that the Revenue stakes involved in the present case are below the prescribed monetary limit as per the latest litigation policy of Revenue Department, we are not inclined to consider the same at this stage. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules.
2. Applicability of previous court judgments on the present case.
3. Requirement for contentions to be raised before the Tribunal.
4. Consideration of monetary limits in Revenue Department's litigation policy.
5. Availability of filing a Review Petition or Miscellaneous Petition.

Interpretation of Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules:
The High Court examined the case where the Tribunal had relied on a Supreme Court decision regarding the striking down of Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules by the Madras High Court in a previous case. The Revenue's counsel argued that this ruling was not applicable to the current scenario. However, the Court refused to entertain these submissions as they were not raised before the Tribunal initially. The Court emphasized the importance of raising contentions before the Tribunal for proper consideration and reasoned order.

Applicability of previous court judgments on the present case:
The Tribunal's decision was primarily based on the precedent set by the Supreme Court and the Madras High Court regarding the invalidity of Rule 96ZQ. The Court highlighted the significance of the Tribunal addressing and considering all relevant contentions raised before it, rather than introducing new arguments at the appellate stage. It reiterated the necessity for issues to be properly raised and dealt with at the initial adjudicatory level.

Requirement for contentions to be raised before the Tribunal:
The judgment emphasized the procedural aspect of raising arguments and contentions before the Tribunal to ensure a fair and comprehensive adjudication process. It stated that new contentions cannot be introduced at the appellate stage without being addressed by the Tribunal initially. The Court's decision underscored the importance of adherence to procedural rules and the orderly conduct of legal proceedings.

Consideration of monetary limits in Revenue Department's litigation policy:
The respondent Assessee raised a plea regarding the Revenue stakes falling below the prescribed monetary limit as per the Revenue Department's litigation policy. However, the Court declined to consider this plea at that stage, indicating a focus on the procedural requirements and the need for issues to be addressed in a systematic manner.

Availability of filing a Review Petition or Miscellaneous Petition:
In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal but granted the appellant Revenue the liberty to file a Review Petition or Miscellaneous Petition before the Tribunal to raise all its contentions. The judgment highlighted the importance of the Tribunal addressing and providing reasons for its decisions to enable proper legal review and consideration of issues.