2011 (2) TMI 749 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal remands appeal due to non-compliance with stay order, High Court intervenes for fresh decision

The Tribunal remanded the appeal to the appellate authority for deciding the matter on merits due to non-compliance with the stay order. The High Court ... Remand - Revenue filed an appeal their against before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, which stands disposed off vide their order dated 06.10.2010 - The Hon ble High Court has observed that inasmuch the Commissioner had not decided the issue on merits, the Tribunal should have remanded the matter in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh vs. Smithkline Beecham Company Health Company Ltd [2003 -TMI - 46677 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - order of commissioner (appeals)set-aside and matter remanded back. Issues:1. Remand of appeal by Tribunal for fresh decision due to non-compliance with stay order.2. Appeal by Revenue to High Court against Tribunal's order.3. High Court's decision to set aside Tribunal's order and remand the matter for fresh decision.4. Tribunal's final decision after considering High Court's order.Analysis:1. The Tribunal remanded the appeal to the appellate authority for deciding the matter on merits as the Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the stay order. The Tribunal observed that the issue was covered by a Larger Bench decision and allowed the stay petition without requiring any pre-deposit. The Tribunal directed the matter to be decided on merits by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The Revenue filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court against the Tribunal's order. The High Court, citing a Supreme Court decision, noted that since the Commissioner had not decided the issue on merits, the Tribunal should have remanded the matter accordingly. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision.3. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal acknowledged that its earlier order did not decide the appeal on merits and specifically noted the failure of the Commissioner (Appeals) to do so. In line with the High Court's directive based on the Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision, emphasizing compliance with the stay order.4. Ultimately, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal by remanding the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision, following the High Court's order and ensuring that the issue was decided on its merits. The Tribunal's final decision aligned with the directives of the higher courts and emphasized the importance of compliance with legal procedures in such matters.