2024 (9) TMI 1412 - HC - Central Excise

Tribunal's Decision Overturned: High Court Remits Case for Reconsideration, Allowing Fresh Arguments on Merits.

M/s. SDS Ramicides Crop Science Private Limited, represented by its Company Secretary (Designation), Mr. K. Balaji Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Thiruchirappalli

The High Court of Madras set aside the orders of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, regarding the appellant's rectification ... Application for rectification of mistake - pending appeals before the Supreme Court - HELD THAT:- The subject-matter of the appeals are not challenged as abundant items of the appellant. Therefore the respondent can independently proceed with the same and the respondent/Department challenge the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai, in Nos.E/510,E.208/2011, E.365/2011, E/40915 – 40918/2015 and now the same is pending with the Honourable Supreme Court. Further pending appeals, the appellant has filed application for rectification of the mistake and for which, the Tribunal has passed the above said order. Though the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is not enttled to get an order in favour of them in the Rectification Application, but however, on a perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, it is seen that they have nothing to with the merit or entitlement or any mistake that has been committed. The orders impugned herein are set aside and the matter is remitted back to file of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai and the Appellate Tribunal is directed to consider the said application for rectification filed by the appellant and pass orders in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties and the parties are at liberty to raise their objections, grounds or points, as the case may be, before the Appellate Tribunal. Appeal disposed off. Issues:- Appeal against the orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai.- Rectification application filed by the appellant.- Challenge regarding the pending appeals before the Supreme Court.- Interpretation of the Tribunal's order and its implications.Analysis:The judgment by the High Court of Madras, delivered by Honourable Mr. Justice P. Velmurugan and Honourable Mr. Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan, pertains to Civil Miscellaneous Appeals challenging the orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. The appellant sought to set aside three impugned orders dated 13.10.2017. The Court heard arguments from both sides and reviewed the relevant materials presented.The Tribunal had previously dismissed the appellant's application for rectification of mistake, citing the pendency of appeals before the Apex Court. The appellant, in response, presented a letter from the respondent/Department indicating their intention to withdraw the appeals pending before the Supreme Court. The appellant argued that, with the withdrawal of the appeals, the matter should be listed for consideration. However, the respondent contended that the subject-matter of the appeals pending before the Supreme Court was unrelated to the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.The Court noted that the subject-matter of the appeals was not challenged as abundant items of the appellant, allowing the respondent to independently proceed. The Tribunal's order on the rectification application was found to be lacking in addressing the merits, entitlement, or any mistakes committed. It merely referenced the pending appeal before the Supreme Court. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration of the rectification application.In conclusion, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals were disposed of with directions for the Tribunal to re-examine the rectification application, ensuring both parties have an opportunity to present their arguments. The parties were granted liberty to raise objections or points before the Appellate Tribunal. No costs were awarded in this matter.