2019 (4) TMI 124 - HC - Central Excise

Court dismisses appeals challenging Tribunal order under Central Excise Act, refuses to address legal question

The Court dismissed all seven appeals challenging a common order passed by the Tribunal under the Central Excise Act. The Court refused to address the ... Interpretation of statute - Effect of amendments - Whether interpretation of provisions of Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in the light of Section 6 of General Clauses Act by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal is proper or not? - Held that:- Before the Court, at the time of admission, the questions as proposed by the Revenue did not raise any issue with regard to demand being barred by limitation. Thus, that issue stands concluded in favour of the respondent even as per the Revenue. So far as other questions which are now being raised are the same which were subject of consideration by the coordinate Bench of this Court at the time of admission. At that time, the appeals were admitted only on one issue by reframing the question of law as reproduced hereinabove. Thus, our entertaining/examining the question for consideration would amount to review of the order dated 18th September 2009 admitting the appeals. This, without any reasons being even suggested by the Revenue, which would warrant the questions being reurged at the time of final hearing of these appeals. There is no reason to exercise our power under the proviso to section 35G (4) of the said Act in the present facts - the substantial question of law as framed in these appeals in the present facts is academic, and are not answered - appeal dismissed. Issues:Appeals under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 challenging a common order dated 27th August 2004 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. Admitted substantial question of law regarding the interpretation of provisions of Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Impact of answering the substantial question of law on other issues decided in favor of the respondents. Refusal to address the substantial question of law due to its academic nature.Analysis:The appeals were filed by the Revenue challenging a common order passed by the Tribunal. The appellant was directed to furnish substantial questions of law, which were subsequently submitted for consideration by the Court. These questions included issues related to the interpretation of statutory provisions, credit availed by the receiver, conditions stipulated in notifications, and the imposition of penalties under specific rules of the Central Excise Act.The Court admitted the appeals based on an identical substantial question of law regarding the interpretation of Section 38A of the Central Excise Act. Subsequently, the appeals were transferred to the Principal Seat at Bombay, and the substantial question of law was deemed academic by the respondents due to the favorable decision on other issues, including the issue of limitation, in the impugned order of the Tribunal.The respondents highlighted that even if the substantial question of law was decided in favor of the Revenue, it would not impact the other issues on which the appeals were allowed. The Revenue did not raise any additional questions of law, indicating their lack of grievance with the other parts of the Tribunal's order favoring the respondents.The Court, after considering the submissions, declined to address the substantial question of law due to its academic nature and the lack of impact on the other issues decided in favor of the respondents. The Court emphasized that reexamining the questions raised at the time of admission would amount to a review without sufficient reasons provided by the Revenue to warrant such reconsideration.In conclusion, the Court dismissed all seven appeals, emphasizing that the substantial question of law was academic in the present circumstances. The Court left open the possibility of considering the substantial question of law in a suitable case but maintained that in the current scenario, addressing the question would serve no practical purpose.