Case remanded to Tribunal for speedy disposal.

PJ/Case law/2014-15/2286

Case:- TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

Citation:- 2011 (274) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.)

Issue:- Case remanded to Tribunal for speedy disposal.

Brief facts:-This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court on 7-12-2009 [2010 (256)E.L.T.216 (Kar.)] whereby the High Court after setting aside the orders passed by the Tribunal and other authorities, remitted the entire disputes to be considered by the Adjudicating Authority and then to record a finding with regard to the fact as to whether or not the incidence of duty has not been passed on to the customers by the Appellant herein for considering the refund claim of the Appellant. The aforesaid findings and the conclusions have been recorded by the Tribunal after analyzing the fact that a certificate dated 10-5-2001 issued by the Chartered Accountant was produced before the Adjudicating Authority but subsequently another certificate was produced which is dated 17-6-2002 issued by another Chartered Accountant, namely, Sh. Om Prakash, which is subsequent to the order of Adjudicating Authority. Consequently, the High Court held that since the subsequent certificate, which was pressed into service before the Tribunal, was admittedly not available before the Adjudicating Authority and, therefore, the matter has to be remitted back for fresh and de novo consideration. It is not disputed that the said particular piece of evidence was not before the Adjudicating Authority and was placed for the first time before the Tribunal.

Appellant’s contentions:-Counsel appearing for the Appellant, however, submits that the aforesaid report dated 17-6-2002 is a cost analysis certificate which analyzes the earlier certificate dated 10-5-2001 and, therefore, it could not have been said that fresh evidence is being led by the Appellant. Counsel appearing for the Appellant further submits that one model, namely, Family Saloon Model, manufactured by the Appellant is covered by the aforesaid cost analysis certificate and therefore, if at all there is a case of remand, such remand should have been restricted to the other models manufactured by the Appellant except for Family Saloon Model which dispute is settled by the report of the Chartered Accountant dated 17-6-2002 giving analysis of the earlier certificate.

Respondent’s contentions:- Counsel appearing for the respondent, however, submits that the findings recorded by the High Court are justified. He, however, states that he has no objection if the matter is reconsidered by the Tribunal itself instead of remitting back the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration, which may be time-consuming, also according to the counsel appearing for the Appellant.

Reasoning of judgment:- Hon’able court have carefully considered the submissions of the counsels appearing for the parties. In their considered opinion, fresh evidence was taken notice of by the Tribunal in the manner of production of the certificate dated 17-6-2002 issued by the Chartered Accountant. The effect and implication of the contents thereof are required to be examined in the light of any other evidence that may be available on record or could be made available. The parties are also required to be given opportunity to adduce such other materials which may be produced by either of the parties in respect of the disputes between them so as to enable the Tribunal to come to an appropriate finding on all the issues and in respect of all the models. In that view of the matter, they see no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the High Court but instead of remitting back the matter to the Adjudicating Authority, they direct and partly allow this appeal by directing that the matter shall now be remitted to the Tribunal for fresh and de novo adjudication of the entire disputes between the parties relating to all the models manufactured by the Appellant. While doing so, they set aside the earlier order of the Tribunal and request the Tribunal to consider the entire evidence on record, which is already available and which may be produced by any of the parties, for which an opportunity shall be granted to both the parties to produce additional evidence, if any.
In terms of the aforesaid order, they partly allow this appeal to the extent indicated above and remit back the matter to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and in terms of the order passed by the High Court. They also request the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the records.

Decision:-Appeal partly allowed.

Comment:- The gist of the case is that as fresh evidence was placed by the assessee, High Court remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to decide the issue according to all the evidences produced. However, Supreme Court opined that instead of remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority, it is better to remand the case to the Tribunal so that the case is effectively and speedily disposed.

{Prepared by: Monika Tak}

Comments

PJ/Case law/2014-15/2286

Post a Comment

Query