2015 (8) TMI 1230 - HC - Central Excise

Court quashes Tribunal's order for not referring dispute to Committee

DY. CHIEF MANAGER PRINTING & STATIONARY Versus COMMR. OF C. EX. & CUS., MUMBAI

The Court quashed the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, which dismissed the appellant's appeal for not referring ... Waiver of pre deposit - appellant has not referred the dispute to a Committee of Disputes which was constituted earlier by the Government of India - Held that:- In another appeal of the appellant before us, the Tribunal entertained the application for dispensation and waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest and penalty and passed an order thereon [2012 (6) TMI 669 - CESTAT, MUMBAI]. - The appeal therefore should not have been dismissed without adjudication. Even if, it was dismissed for want of prosecution on the application of the appellant, the same should have been restored. The restoration application could not have been dismissed by the reasons which are assigned in the impugned order. - impugned order is quashed and set aside and the appeal of the appellant is restored to the file of the Tribunal - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:Appeal challenging order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal based on failure to refer dispute to Committee of Disputes as per previous judgments.Analysis:The judgment in question involves an appeal challenging an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeal of the appellant on the sole ground that the appellant had not referred the dispute to a Committee of Disputes as mandated by previous judgments, including one by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Commissioner of Central Excise. However, the appellant's counsel pointed out a subsequent judgment by a five-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Electronics Corporation of India Limited v. Union of India, which clarified that it is not mandatory for disputes between governmental agencies to be referred to a committee. The Court agreed with this interpretation and held that the Tribunal should not have dismissed the appeal solely on this ground.Furthermore, the Court expressed surprise at the Tribunal's inconsistent approach, noting that in another appeal of the same appellant, the Tribunal had entertained an application for dispensation and waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty. The Court emphasized that the appeal should not have been dismissed without proper adjudication. Even if it was dismissed for want of prosecution, the Court held that it should have been restored, and the restoration application should not have been dismissed based on the reasons provided in the impugned order.Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal of the appellant to the Tribunal for disposal on merits and in accordance with the law. The Court also made it clear that all contentions of both sides on merits are kept open for further consideration. The appeal was thereby disposed of with these directions.