2015 (9) TMI 511 - HC - Customs

Appeal challenging Customs Tribunal's order dismissed for not raising substantial question of law.

Commissioner of Customs (EP) Versus National Steel & Agro Industries Ltd.

The Court dismissed the appeal challenging the Commissioner of Customs and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's order, which allowed the respondent's appeal ... Utilisation of Advance Licensing Scheme – Matter Remanded back for De-Novo consideration - Tribunal vide impugned order remanded matter back to Commissioner for denovo consideration, and to re-¬adjudicate show cause notice in its entirety – Whether tribunal was justified in remanding matter back for de-novo consideration – Held that:- Tribunal clearly concluded issue that activity of respondent assessee could be termed as “manufacture” – Only limited issue which was being dealt with by Tribunal is whether assessee has produced documents to satisfy that imported materials under Advance Licensing Scheme have been correctly utilised as per terms and conditions of scheme read with relevant notifications – Tribunal noticed in order under Appeal that adjudicating authority did travel beyond its earlier direction – Therefore, present court of opinion that Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law – Decided against revenue. Issues:Challenge to order by Commissioner of Customs and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal allowing respondent's appeal and quashing the impugned order. Interpretation of remand order by Tribunal for denovo consideration. Whether the remand was for a limited purpose or permitted reopening of concluded issues.Analysis:The judgment concerns an appeal challenging an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which allowed the respondent's appeal and quashed the impugned order. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal's remand to the Commissioner for denovo consideration did not conclude the matter entirely, allowing for a fresh adjudication. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the Tribunal's remand was for a specific purpose and did not permit reopening of already concluded issues. The Tribunal had previously determined that the respondent's activity could be considered as 'manufacture,' and the remand was primarily to verify the utilization of imported materials under the Advance Licensing Scheme.Upon reviewing the orders passed by the Commissioner and the Tribunal, the Court found that the Tribunal had indeed concluded the issue regarding the nature of the respondent's activity as 'manufacture.' The limited issue being dealt with during the remand was whether the imported materials were used in accordance with the terms of the Advance Licensing Scheme. The Court emphasized that the remand order was for a specific purpose and did not authorize the adjudicating authority to reopen already concluded matters. The Tribunal observed that the adjudicating authority had exceeded the scope of the remand by attempting to revisit issues already settled, which was deemed impermissible.After careful consideration, the Court determined that the present appeal did not raise any substantial question of law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The respondent's advocate agreed to file the necessary vakalatnama within two weeks. The judgment highlights the importance of adhering to the specific purposes of remand orders and the limitations on reopening issues already settled during the adjudication process.