2021 (1) TMI 820 - HC - Customs

Refund of Rubber Cess - Validity of CESTAT order to Remand of the proceedings to the adjudicating authority - neither the Appellant nor the Respondent requested for remand of the proceedings - Appellant was not paid in pursuance of any assessment order and no factual aspect was required to be reexamined by the adjudicating authority - HELD THAT - The appellate tribunal, on its own, should have looked into the matter on its own merits. For the purpose of considering the case-law referred to in the impugned order, the matter should not have been remanded. The impugned order passed by the appellate tribunal is hereby quashed and set-aside and the matter is remitted to the tribunal for being considered afresh on its own merits in accordance with law - Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
1. Remanding proceedings for reconsideration without request
2. Refund of Rubber Cess entitlement
3. Appellate Tribunal's authority to remand cases

Issue 1: Remanding proceedings for reconsideration without request
The Tax Appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 was filed by a Public Limited Company manufacturing 'Tyres' against the final order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appellant questioned the correctness of the Tribunal's decision to remand the proceedings to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration without any request from either party. The Tribunal remanded the case based on the issue of rubber cess refund claimed by the appellant, emphasizing the need to consider all relevant judgments and facts presented by the appellant. The High Court noted that the Tribunal should have examined the matter on its own merits without remanding the case solely based on the assessment order not being challenged. Consequently, the High Court partly allowed the Appeal, quashed the impugned order, and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on its own merits.

Issue 2: Refund of Rubber Cess entitlement
The appellant contended that they were entitled to a refund of Rubber Cess, which was not paid in pursuance of any assessment order. The Tribunal, while remanding the case, highlighted the importance of considering the appellant's contentions, relevant case laws, and the question of unjust enrichment. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to carefully examine all aspects, including the appellant's submissions and the issue of unjust enrichment, before making a decision on the refund claim. The High Court acknowledged the significance of these factors in the case and emphasized the need for a thorough reconsideration of the matter by the Tribunal on its own merits.

Issue 3: Appellate Tribunal's authority to remand cases
The High Court, in its judgment, addressed the Appellate Tribunal's authority to remand cases for fresh consideration. It noted that the Tribunal should have independently assessed the case on its own merits rather than solely relying on the assessment order not being challenged. The High Court emphasized the importance of considering all relevant contentions, judgments, and facts presented by the appellant before making a decision. Consequently, the High Court partly allowed the Appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration in accordance with the law.

Overall, the High Court's judgment focused on the necessity for a thorough and independent evaluation of the case on its merits, highlighting the importance of considering all relevant factors, contentions, and legal principles before reaching a decision on the refund claim of Rubber Cess.