2018 (9) TMI 202 - HC - Customs

High Court Allows Appeals, Criticizes Tribunal's Remand Practice

The High Court allowed both appeals, setting aside the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's order remanding the case back to the ... Jurisdiction - power to issue SCN - validity of remand order - Held that:- The order of remand passed by the Tribunal was not required, as the issue involved is pending consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court against the views expressed by the Delhi High Court in Mangali Impex Limited Vs. Union of India [2016 (5) TMI 225 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Once the legal issue, which is subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal, is pending consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the Tribunal itself should have decided the cases on merits after the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court instead of remanding those cases back to the Adjudicating Authority - The process adopted by the Tribunal apparently is to dispose of the cases pending before it without application of mind. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to be decided on merits after decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mangali Impex Limited's case - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues:1. Appeal against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) remanding the case back to the Adjudicating Authority.2. Whether the Tribunal should have decided the cases on merits after the decision of the Supreme Court instead of remanding them back to the Adjudicating Authority.Analysis:1. The High Court heard two appeals against the order of CESTAT remanding the case back to the Adjudicating Authority. Both the assessee and the revenue filed appeals against the CESTAT order dated 19.07.2017. The Tribunal's order set aside the Commissioner's decision and remitted the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision.2. Both parties agreed that the issue was pending consideration before the Supreme Court in light of the Delhi High Court's decision in 'Mangali Impex Limited Vs. Union of India 2016 (335) ELT 605 (Del.)'. They argued that there was no need for the remand as the case could be decided by the Tribunal after the Supreme Court's judgment in Mangali Impex Limited's case. The High Court noted that the Supreme Court had stayed the operation of the Delhi High Court's judgment in the same case.3. The High Court referred to a similar case where the Delhi High Court set aside orders remanding cases back to the Adjudicating Authority and directed the matters to be decided on merits by the Tribunal. After hearing both parties, the High Court found merit in their submissions. It criticized the Tribunal's approach of remanding cases without applying its mind and stated that the Tribunal should have decided the cases on merits after the Supreme Court's decision.4. Consequently, the High Court allowed both appeals, setting aside the Tribunal's order. The matter was remitted back to the Tribunal to be decided on merits after the Supreme Court's decision in Mangali Impex Limited's case. The High Court emphasized the importance of deciding cases on their merits rather than resorting to unnecessary remands, especially when legal issues are pending before higher courts.