TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 997
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Central Excise, Custom and Service Tax, Bangalore, (Adjudicating Authority), with the condition that the appellant-assessee shall deposit an amount of Rs. 40.00 lakhs within 8 weeks. The appellant is aggrieved only by the latter part of the order requiring the appellant to deposit Rs. 40.00 lakhs as a precondition of remand to the Adjudicating Authority. 2. The brief facts of the case are: - The appellant M/s Dhariwal Industries Limited, Bangalore is a manufacturer of Panmasala and Gutka and is registered under the Central Excise Act, 1944. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant, for which a show cause notice was issued on 1.8.2012 demanding Central Excise Duty, alleging that for the period July '07 to February '08, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t has been contended that the order has been passed by the Tribunal under Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which does not empower the Tribunal to impose any such condition as has been done in the present case. According to the appellant, since the order passed by the adjudicating authority has been set-aside, there was no liability of payment of any Excise Duty on the appellant, and as such, the imposition of the condition of deposit of Rs. 40.00 lakhs was beyond the scope of the provision of Section 35C. In the alternative, it has been submitted that in the absence of any reasons having been given for computing the amount of Rs. 40.00 lakhs or for imposing any such condition for deposit, the order impugned is liable to be set-as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the decision or order appealed against or may refer the case back to the authority which passed such decision or order with such directions as the Appellate Tribunal may think fit, for a fresh adjudication or decision, as the case may be, after taking additional evidence, if necessary". (emphasis supplied) 11. Much emphasis has been laid on the fact that the Tribunal has the power to pass such orders as it thinks fit, confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against, or may refer the case back to the authority which passed the decision with such directions as the appellate Tribunal may think fit. 12. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that "with such directions" referred to in the afo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... SERVICE TAX VISAKHAPATNAM-I, COMMISSIONERATE - 2014-TIOL-2014-HC-AP-CX, it has been held that unlike Civil Court, the Tribunal, being an appellate authority, has no power or jurisdiction to ask for security before adjudication after remand, as the Tribunal does not have any inherent power, like Civil Court, to pass appropriate order to meet the ends of justice. In the said case, it has also been held that the Tribunal has specific powers mentioned in the Statute itself, and in the absence of their being any provision for making any deposit for adjudication after remand, the same would be without jurisdiction. 15. In the case of SATVIK INDUSTRIES vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI - II (2010 (252) ELT 182 (Del)), a Division Bench of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant. After giving a detailed finding of fact that the Adjudicating Authority had not considered the various evidences which were led, and that no proper opportunity of cross-examination or hearing was afforded to the appellant, the Tribunal has set-aside the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority which had imposed liability of over Rs. 26.00 crores on the appellant. 19. The Tribunal has, thus, for valid reasons, remanded the matter for fresh consideration of each and every point that may be submitted by the appellant. In the end, all that the Tribunal has observed is that, "we consider that the matter is required to be remanded for fresh adjudication by the learned Commissioner, and we direct the appellant DIL to deposit an amount....