2019 (2) TMI 1558 - HC - Central Excise

High Court criticizes tribunal for improper remand procedure, emphasizes lower court autonomy

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX KOLKATA Versus M/s. IXIA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.

The Calcutta High Court criticized the Tribunal for improper remand procedure and emphasized the need for lower courts to proceed unless waiting for a ... Jurisdiction - power of Additional Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Calcutta to issue SCN - Held that:- Whether the Additional Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Calcutta had the power to issue the subject show cause notice is pending before the Supreme Court? - there is no justification in remanding the matter to the original adjudicating authority. The matter restored before the Tribunal, which is directed to hear and dispose of the matter by passing a reasoned order. Issues involved:1. Proper procedure followed by the Tribunal in remanding the appeal to the original adjudicating authority.2. Power of the Additional Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Calcutta to issue the show cause notice.3. Condonation of delay in the appeal registration process.Analysis:1. The High Court criticized the Tribunal for not following the correct procedure in remanding the appeal to the original adjudicating authority. The Court emphasized that the lower court should not become inactive just because a similar matter is pending in a superior court. It was noted that unless there is a specific indication to wait for a judgment from a higher court, the lower court should proceed based on the existing law. The High Court held that there was no justification for remanding the matter and allowed the appeals filed by the assessee by way of remand.2. The issue of whether the Additional Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Calcutta had the authority to issue the show cause notice was brought up before the Supreme Court. The Court was informed that the order of the Delhi High Court, which was under appeal, had been stayed by the Supreme Court. The High Court acknowledged this information but did not find it relevant to remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority. The Court admitted the appeal by condoning a delay of 171 days and directed the department to register the appeal promptly.3. In another matter, the Court directed the authority that passed the original order to transfer all case files to the Tribunal for a hearing within three months. The Tribunal was instructed to dispose of the matter by issuing a reasoned order after providing an opportunity for all parties to be heard. The appeal and the stay petition were accordingly disposed of by the Court.This judgment by the Calcutta High Court addressed procedural lapses by the Tribunal, the power of the Additional Director General, and the timely disposal of appeals, ensuring a fair and efficient legal process.