2016 (2) TMI 16 - HC - Central Excise

Court overturns Tribunal decision on appeal, finds clear mistake, remands for fresh decision.

M/s. Roots Multiclean Ltd. Versus The Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, The Commissioner of Central Excise

The Court held that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal based on monetary limits as the issue involved the valuation of goods, falling under an ... Admissibility of appeal - dispute on valuation of the goods - Held that:- Admittedly, in the case on hand, the dispute before the Tribunal is, with reference to valuation of the goods. When the dispute is with reference to the valuation of the goods, even though the amount of duty involved is not more than Rupees Two Lakhs, the Tribunal has no discretion to refuse to admit the appeal. So far as this Court is concerned, when the issue relates to valuation, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. So far as the Tribunal is concerned, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to refuse to admit the appeal, if one of the issues involved is with reference to valuation of goods. Without understanding the provisions of Section 35B of the Act, the Tribunal has chosen to dismiss the appeal and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Under Section 35G of the Act, the reference to the jurisdiction is not only with regard to valuation but also with reference to questions in relation to valuation. The phrase in relation to are words of comprehensiveness, which might both have a direct significance as well as indirect significance depending upon the context. But, the phrase has to be read not in isoloation, but along with the pleadings in the case. The pleadings are pertaining to the non-application of mind by the Tribunal, while interpreting the provisions of Section 35B of the Act. Therefore, the contention that this Court has no jurisdiction cannot be accepted. Therefore, this Court holds that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain these Appeals. Coming back to the orders passed by the Tribunal, it is clear that when the dispute raised is touching the valuation of the property, the Tribunal has no discretion to refuse to admit the appeal. After admitting the appeal, it is open to the Tribunal to decide the issues raised on merits.The Tribunal has no power to review its own order. However, the Tribunal can pass order for rectifying a mistake apparent from the records within six months from the passing of the order, as contemplated under Section 35C (2) of of the Act. At least, after the mistakes being pointing out, the Tribunal below ought to have rectified the same. Instead, the Tribunal has passed a cryptic order without assigning any reason. On the simple ground that it is a non-speaking order, the order is liable to be set-aside and it is set-aside accordingly. As the order in the appeal is set-aside, automatically, the order passed in the Application for Rectification of Mistake becomes non-est in law. Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to reject the appeal based on monetary limits.2. Validity of the Tribunal's order dismissing the Application for Rectification of Mistake (ROM).Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to Reject the Appeal Based on Monetary LimitsContention of the Appellant:The appellant argued that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to reject the appeal on the ground of monetary limit when the issue involved relates to the valuation of goods or the rate of duty. The appellant cited the second proviso to Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which states that the Tribunal cannot refuse to admit an appeal if the issue pertains to the valuation or rate of duty, regardless of the monetary limit involved.Contention of the Revenue:The Revenue contended that when the issue relates to valuation or rate of duty, neither the High Court nor the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal was justified.Court's Analysis:The Court examined Section 35B of the Act, which outlines the conditions under which appeals can be made to the Appellate Tribunal. The second proviso to Section 35B(1) specifies that the Tribunal may refuse to admit an appeal if the amount involved is less than two lakhs rupees, except in cases involving the determination of the rate of duty or the value of goods for assessment purposes.The Court noted that the dispute in this case was related to the valuation of goods. Therefore, the Tribunal had no discretion to refuse to admit the appeal based on the monetary limit. The Court held that the Tribunal misunderstood the provisions of Section 35B and erroneously dismissed the appeal.Conclusion:The Court concluded that the Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal on the ground of monetary limit was incorrect because the issue involved related to the valuation of goods. The Tribunal should have admitted the appeal and decided the issues on merits.Issue 2: Validity of the Tribunal's Order Dismissing the Application for Rectification of Mistake (ROM)Contention of the Appellant:The appellant filed an Application for Rectification of Mistake (ROM), arguing that the Tribunal's order dismissing the appeal was against the second proviso to Section 35B of the Act. The appellant contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the clear statutory provisions and made a mistake apparent on the face of the record.Court's Analysis:The Court referred to Section 35C(2) of the Act, which allows the Tribunal to rectify any mistake apparent from the record within six months from the date of the order. The Court cited the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT, where it was held that the purpose of rectification is to ensure that no party suffers due to a mistake committed by the Tribunal.The Court found that the Tribunal failed to rectify its mistake even after it was pointed out by the appellant. The Tribunal's order dismissing the ROM was a non-speaking order and lacked reasoning.Conclusion:The Court set aside the Tribunal's order dismissing the ROM, holding that it was a non-speaking order and failed to address the apparent mistake in interpreting Section 35B of the Act. The Court remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on merits.Final Judgment:1. C.M.A.No.2586 of 2015: The appeal challenging the Final Order No.40382 of 2014 is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide on merits within one month from the date of receipt of the judgment.2. C.M.A.No.2230 of 2015: The appeal challenging the Miscellaneous Order No.40697 of 2015 is allowed. Consequently, the Application for Rectification of Mistake stands dismissed as infructuous.The Court emphasized that the Tribunal must admit the appeal when the issue pertains to the valuation of goods, irrespective of the monetary limit involved. The Tribunal's failure to understand and apply the provisions of Section 35B correctly led to the setting aside of its orders.