2011 (3) TMI 1571 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal grants joint appeal consideration to prevent litigation, uphold justice.

COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., SURAT Versus JAY BHAGWATI TEXTILE PRINTS PVT. LTD.

COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., SURAT Versus JAY BHAGWATI TEXTILE PRINTS PVT. LTD. - 2014 (313) E.L.T. 705 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Issues:1. Confirmation of duty demand and penalties against the appellant company and director.2. Appeal filed by the appellant company and director against the duty demand, penalties, and interest.3. Application by Revenue seeking recall of the Tribunal's order to consider pending appeals together.4. Consideration of the doctrine of merger theory and past Tribunal decisions.5. Decision on recalling the Tribunal's order and listing both appeals together for a hearing.Analysis:1. The judgment initially outlines the duty demand confirmation against the appellant company for removing processed fabrics without payment of duty, leading to penalties imposed on the director and the company. The Commissioner (Appeals) re-determined the duty demand and reduced penalties, leading to appeals by both the company and director.2. The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant company and director after full payment of dues as per the Commissioner's order, acknowledging the payment of duty demand, interest, and penalty within the specified time frame.3. Subsequently, the Revenue filed an application seeking the recall of the Tribunal's order to consider pending appeals together, citing similar cases where both appeals were heard jointly. The Revenue argued that the doctrine of merger theory might apply, preventing consideration of the Revenue's appeal separately.4. The judgment delves into the arguments presented by the Revenue, emphasizing the need for joint consideration of appeals based on past Tribunal decisions and the application of Rule 41 of CESTAT Procedure Rules to secure the ends of justice. The Tribunal considered the necessity of recalling the order to avoid additional litigation and ensure judicial discipline.5. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's application, recalling its previous order, and directed the listing of both appeals together for a comprehensive hearing. This decision was made to adhere to past Tribunal decisions, maintain judicial discipline, and meet the ends of justice, as mandated by Rule 41 of CESTAT Procedure Rules.In conclusion, the judgment addresses the duty demand, penalties, and appeals filed by the appellant company and director, along with the Revenue's application seeking the recall of the Tribunal's order to consider pending appeals jointly. The decision to recall the order and list both appeals together reflects the Tribunal's commitment to judicial discipline, precedent decisions, and the pursuit of justice in line with Rule 41 of CESTAT Procedure Rules.