2015 (8) TMI 1245 - AT - Service Tax

Appellate Tribunal Upholds Remand Authority in Appeals Process under Finance Act Section 85(4)

Commissioner of Central Excise, Panchkula Versus Duli Chand Narender Kumar Exports Pvt Ltd, Best Food International, Tanna Agro Impex Pvt Ltd, Modern Dairies Ltd, Muskan Overseas

The Tribunal affirmed the authority of the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand cases for de novo adjudication, based on the broader discretion granted under ... Power of Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the matter - Held that:- under section 85(4) the language is used in wider context. It does not restrict the type of order which the Commissioner (Appeals) may pass. Rather it states that the Commissioner (Appeals) may pass such order as he thinks fit. Thus scope of remand is included in the provision of law liad down in the section 85(4). Reliance is placed on the case of CST, Delhi vs. World Vision-[2009 (11) TMI 452 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI ] Reliance is also placed on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of UOI Vs. Umesh Dhaimode [1997 (2) TMI 140 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] holding that an order of remand necessarily annuls the decision which is under appeal. Therefore, the appellate authority has the power to remand a matter to the lower authority. - Decided against Revenue. Issues:Challenge to Order of Commissioner (Appeals) remanding cases for de novo adjudication.Analysis:The judgment revolves around the challenge by the Revenue against the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) remanding cases back to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication. The Revenue contended that the power of remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) was taken away by an amendment in section 35A(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The amended section 35A(3) specifies that the Commissioner (Appeals) can pass orders confirming, modifying, or annulling the decision or order appealed against. However, the relevant section 85(4) of the Finance Act, 1994, provides a broader scope, stating that the Commissioner (Appeals) may pass such orders as he thinks fit, including enhancing service tax, interest, or penalty. It was argued that the language used in section 85(4) does not restrict the type of order the Commissioner (Appeals) may pass, thereby allowing for the possibility of remand. The judgment draws on precedents such as the case of CST, Delhi vs. World Vision-2010 and the Supreme Court judgment in UOI Vs. Umesh Dhaimode 1998 to support the view that an order of remand annuls the decision under appeal, giving the appellate authority the power to remand a matter to the lower authority.The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals, affirming the authority of the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand cases for de novo adjudication. The decision was based on the interpretation of the relevant provisions in the Central Excise Act and the Finance Act, emphasizing the broader discretion granted to the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 85(4) to pass orders as deemed appropriate. The judgment underscores the legal principle that the power to remand is inherent in the appellate authority's jurisdiction, as supported by legal precedents. This comprehensive analysis clarifies the scope of remand in the context of appellate proceedings, highlighting the importance of statutory provisions and judicial interpretations in determining the authority of the appellate tribunal.