Supreme Court directs fresh hearing in appeal, stresses unbiased review without prior influence

The Supreme Court set aside the orders passed by the tribunal and High Court in an appeal arising from S.L.P.(C) No. 22266 of 2014. The appellant was directed to pay costs of Rs. 1,00,000 to the Department, to be transmitted to Respondent No. 1. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal should proceed with a fresh hearing on the merits of the case without being influenced by earlier concessions. The judgment serves as a directive for an unbiased hearing without preconceived notions from previous proceedings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 filed in the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur.
2. Dismissal of review application by the Tribunal.
3. Assailing the order of dismissal in the appeal arising from S.L.P.(C) No. 22266 of 2014.
4. Setting aside the orders passed by the tribunal and the High Court.
5. Direction to pay costs to the Department.
6. Transmission of the deposited amount to the Respondent No. 1.
7. Proceeding with the hearing on the merits of the case by the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. The Division Bench of the High Court passed an order based on an agreement between the parties, allowing the Assessee to withdraw the appeal and file a review application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in turn, dismissed the review application, affirming the correctness of the earlier judgment. The High Court held that no question of law arose, and consequently, the tax case was dismissed.

2. Subsequently, an application for review was filed, but it was unsuccessful. The appellant then challenged the order of dismissal in the appeal arising from S.L.P.(C) No. 22266 of 2014. After hearing both parties, the Supreme Court decided to set aside the orders passed by the tribunal in the appeal and the High Court in the writ petition and review. However, the appellant was directed to pay costs of Rs. 1,00,000 to the Department, which had already been deposited with the Court. This amount was to be transmitted to Respondent No. 1 within two weeks.

3. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Tribunal should proceed with the hearing on the merits of the case without being influenced by any concessions made at an earlier point in time. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs of these appeals. The judgment serves as a directive for the Tribunal to conduct a fresh hearing on the merits of the case without any preconceived notions or influences from previous proceedings.

---