9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 997X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g was afforded to the appellant, the Tribunal has set-aside the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority which had imposed liability of over ₹ 26.00 crores on the appellant. It is clear that though for setting-aside the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority and remanding the case for fresh decision, sufficient reasons have been given, but no reason, whatsoever, has been given for imposing a precondition of deposit of ₹ 40.00 lakhs by the appellant. There is even no justification for quantifying the amount ₹ 40 lakhs to be deposited by the appellant. - Tribunal may, for some specific and valid reason, have the jurisdiction to impose the condition of deposit of certain amount while remanding the case back to the Adjudicating Authority, but the same can be done only in a judicious manner and not in arbitrary manner and without justification. In the present case, the same is totally lacking. - Decided in favour of assessee. - CEA No. 60/2014 - - - Dated:- 26-2-2015 - Vineet Saran And S. Sujatha,JJ. For the Appellants : Sri Sujay Kantavala, Adv. Sri B Venugopal Sri Hari Radhakrishnan, Advs. For the Respondents : Sri Y Hariprasad, Sr. Standing C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , what-soever, has been given for imposing the condition of deposit of ₹ 40.00 lakhs before the matter is to be reheard and considered by the adjudicating authority afresh. 6. It has been contended that the order has been passed by the Tribunal under Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which does not empower the Tribunal to impose any such condition as has been done in the present case. According to the appellant, since the order passed by the adjudicating authority has been set-aside, there was no liability of payment of any Excise Duty on the appellant, and as such, the imposition of the condition of deposit of ₹ 40.00 lakhs was beyond the scope of the provision of Section 35C. In the alternative, it has been submitted that in the absence of any reasons having been given for computing the amount of ₹ 40.00 lakhs or for imposing any such condition for deposit, the order impugned is liable to be set-aside. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the appellant is an assessee which pays Excise Duty to the tune of few crores every month, and is regularly assessed by the authorities concerned and as such, it is not a case where such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case, though directions' may be permissible with regard to the merits, no condition' can be imposed while remanding the matter. 13. In the case of NATIONAL OXYGEN LIMITED vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI (2008(231) ELT 410 (Mad.)) the Division Bench of the Madras High Court was dealing with a case under Section 129B of the Customs Act, 1962 which are similar to the provisions of Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Madras High Court has held that no such precondition directing the appellant to deposit 50% of the differential value could be imposed while setting-aside and remanding the matter to the authority below for fresh decision, and that the only power which could be exercised by the Tribunal was to refer the case back to the authority which passed such order, with such direction as the Appellate Tribunal may think fit for fresh adjudication or decision, as the case may be, after taking additional evidence, if necessary. 14. In another case of the High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LTD vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX VISAKHAPATNAM-I, COMMISSIONERATE - 2014-TIOL-2014-HC-AP-CX, it has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant, the Tribunal has set-aside the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority which had imposed liability of over ₹ 26.00 crores on the appellant. 19. The Tribunal has, thus, for valid reasons, remanded the matter for fresh consideration of each and every point that may be submitted by the appellant. In the end, all that the Tribunal has observed is that, we consider that the matter is required to be remanded for fresh adjudication by the learned Commissioner, and we direct the appellant DIL to deposit an amount of ₹ 40.00 lakhs (Rupees Forty Lakhs only) within eight weeks and report compliance to the original adjudicating authority who shall take up adjudication of the matter thereafter . 20. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that no reason what-so-ever has been given for imposing such condition of deposit of ₹ 40.00 lakhs, has merit. Though we are of the opinion, that in terms of the language of Section 35C, the power of the Tribunal of imposing certain conditions with regard to deposit may be there, while setting-aside and remanding the matter to the Adjudicating Authority, yet the same can be done only with valid reasons and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
