Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *   CBIC issues draft rules for Customs valuation *  Top Headlines: Threshold for Benami deals, green bond investors, and more *  Govt aims 1-hour clearance for goods at all ports *  Exporters Allowed To Use RoDTEP, RoSCTL Scrips To Pay Customs Duty, Transfer Them; Rules Amended *  Millions of labourers to be affected by brick producers’ strike over hike in GST, coal rates *  Inauguration of ‘kendriya GST parisar’ *  Transporter can seek Release of Conveyance alone, not Goods under GST Act: Madras HC *  GST: Quoting of DIN Mandatory for Responding to Notice, Govt Modifies Portal *  Firms can soon file claims for GST credits of ?400 cr *  CBIC issues modalities for filing transitional credit under GST. *  Mumbai: Man creates 36 fake GST firms, arrested for input tax credit fraud of Rs 23 cr *  Report to restructure Commerce Ministry under study; idea is to set up trade promotion body: Goyal *  Firms can soon file claims for GST credits of ?400 cr *  Gambling Alert! Govt May Levy Up To 28% GST; UP, Bengal Back Move *  EPFO backs raising retirement age to ease pressure on pension funds *  India Moving Up Power Scale, Set to Become Third Largest Economy By 2030 *  Airfares Get Expensive: What Changes for Flyers From Today? *  IRCTC Latest News: Passengers to Pay More For Cancelling Confirmed Rail Tickets Soon. *  IBC prevails over Customs Act, says Supreme Court. *  As GST enters sixth year, a time for evaluation and reassessment *  There’s GST on daily essentials as Centre needs money to buy MLAs: Arvind Kejriwal *  Now, GST on cancellation of confirmed train tickets, hotel bookings *  GST kitty for top States could rise 20% in FY23, says Crisil *  French customs officials seize another cargo vessel over Russia sanctions *  TradeLens builds on Asia momentum with Pakistan Customs deal *  Hike tax on tobacco, reduce affordability & increase revenue: Civil society organizations to GST council *  Bihar: ?10 crore tax evasion on tobacco products detected in raids *  Centre failed on GST, COVID; would it be anti-national? Rajan on Infosys row *  Service Tax not Chargeable on Income Tax TDS portion paid by recipient: CESTAT grants relief to TVS *  Foreign portfolio investors make net investment of Rs 7575cr in Sep so far
Subject News *  Run-up to Budget: Monetary threshold for GST offences may rise to Rs 25 cr *   GST (Tax) E-invoice Must For Businesses With Over Rs 5 Crore Annual Turnover *   Both Central GST and excise duty can be imposed on tobacco, rules Karnataka high court *   CBIC Issues Clarification On Extended Timelines For GST Compliance *   CBIC Issues Clarification On Extended Timelines For GST Compliance *  Budget 2023- 9.6 crore gas connections *  GST: Tamil Nadu Issues Instructions for Assessment and Adjudication Proceedings *  GST: CBIC Extends Last Date for filing of ITC *  GST collection in September surpasses Rs 1.4 lakh crore for straight seventh time *  Dollar smuggling case: Customs chargesheet names M Sivasankar as key conspirator. *  Hike in GST rates fuels inflation *  Assam: CBI arrests GST commissioner in Guwahati *  GST fraud worth ?824cr by 15 insurance Cos detected *  India proposes 15% customs duties on 22 items imported from UK *  Decriminalising certain offences under GST on cards *  Surge in GST collections more due to higher inflation: India Ratings *  MNRE Notifies BCD and Hike in GST Rates as ‘Change in Law’ Events But With a Condition | Mercom India *   Solar projects awarded before customs duty change allowed cost pass-through *  Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions Challenging Levy Of GST On Royalty *   GST revenue in September likely at Rs 1.45 lakh crore *  Govt working on decriminalising certain offences under GST, lower compounding charge *  Building an institution like GST Council takes time, trashing is easy: Sitharaman *  GST collections in Sept may touch ?1.5 lakh crore *  KTR asks Centre to withdraw GST on handlooms *  After Gameskraft, More Online Gaming Startups To Receive GST Tax Claims *  Madras HC: AAR Application Filed Under VAT Does Not Survive After GST Enactment *  Threshold for criminal offences under GST law may be raised *  Bengaluru: Gaming company faces biggest GST notice of Rs 21,000 crore *  CBIC clarifies Classification of Cranes for GST, Customs Duty *  Customs seize gold hidden in bicycle in Kerala airport  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Laws/2012-13/1313

Remand directions of the Tribunal to be followed by the lower authorities strictly.


Case:-  CCE, Chennai Vs S&S Power Switch Gear Ltd.

Citation:- 2012-TIOL-1596-CESTAT

Brief Facts:-The respondent are engaged in the manufacture of HT circuit breakers of various types. During the relevant period, the respondent were discharging duty on the said goods @ 5% in terms of Notification no. 52/93-CE dt. 28/02/93 by classifying the same under heading 8535.00. The Adjudicating authority issued three SCNs, raising demands of duties on the allegation that the goods were not classifiable under heading 8535.00 but the same are properly classifiable under heading 85.37 and as such the benefit of Notification was not available to them. The Department raised demand for the period 1.03.93 to 31.12.93 by first SCN, 01.01.94 to 31.0394 by second SCN and April 94 to July 94 by third SCN. When the above SCNs were still in the process of adjudication, the CBEC vide an order No.32/8/94-CX.4 vide F.no. 151/6/94-CX.4 dt. 14/07/94 issued under Section 37B of the Central Excise Act held that circuit breakers mentioned in the list appended to the said order were classifiable under heading 8437.00 of the central excise act, 1985. Thereafter, the commissioner passed the order in original confirming the demands covered by three SCNs and imposing penalty. The respondent filed appeal against the said order before tribunal. The tribunal remanded the matter for redetermination of classification issue and held that demand of duty has to be restricted to 6 months period only.
The Commissioner, while quantifying the demand, took note of the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Southern switch Gear Ltd. V.s CCE Chennai- 2003 (155) ELT 145 (Tri. Chennai) laying down that board’s circular dt. 14/07/94 classifying the goods under heading 8537 would have only prospective effect and, therefore, classification of the product has to be adopted under heading 8537.00 only from 14/07/94, confirmed the demand of duty for the period 14/07/94 to 31/07/1994. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.
 
Appellant’s Contention:-   The appellant submits  that the demand raised against the respondents should have been confirmed for the entire period Jan’93 to July’94 inasmuch as subsequent to passing of the order by the Tribunal vide which matters were remanded, vide section 110 of Finance Act 2000 provisions of Section 11A were amended retrospectively revalidating the issuance of SCNs under Section 11A for a period of 6 months or 5 years from the relevant date notwithstanding any approval of classification list or price list during the said period. The appellant further submits that in view of the above amendment to section 11A, brought vide Section 110 of the Finance Act 2000, demands raised against the assesses by way of SCNs stand validated irrespective of the fact that as to whether the classification lists were approved or not. In such a scenario, it is his submission that the entire duty raised against the respondents by invoking the longer period of limitation is required to be confirmed.
 
Respondent’s Contention:-The Respondent submits that the earlier remand order of the Tribunal specifically observed that the Board’s Circular is effective only prospectively. In an identical matter, the Tribunal in the case of Southern Switch Gear Ltd. Vs. CCE Chennai-2003 (155) ELT 145 (Tri. Chennai) has held that the demand should have been confirmed by the lower authorities w.e.f. 14/07/94 onwards i.e. from the date of issuance of the board’s circular. He also relies upon the Tribunal’s decision in the case of CCE Pondicherry Vs. Micro Controls 2007 (214) ELT 547 (T) wherein following the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of HM bags, the demand was confirmed only prospectively from the date of issuance of the Board’s circular. As such, the respondent supports the impugned order of the commissioner, confirming the demand for the period 14/07/94 to 31/07/94 only.
 
Reasoning of judgment:-The Tribunal heard  and appreciated the submissions made by both sides and considered that the present impugned order has been passed by the commissioner in de novo proceedings, when the matter was earlier remanded by the Tribunal. On going through the said order of the Tribunal, The Tribunal further finds that originally there was difference of opinion between the members and the matter was referred to third member. As per the majority order, the matters were remanded with the direction to restrict the demand to a period of 6 monthly only. For proper appreciation, the relevant paragraphs from the order of member (Technical) who first authored the order and the order of the third member are reproduced as follows:
Order of the Member (Technical)
 
“Since we are setting aside the order by restricting the demands to a period of six months and remanding the matter back to the learned commissioner to re-quantify the demands, we would consider leaving the issue on merits to be kept open, to both sides. Therefore we do not arrive at any findings on submissions made on merits an also on the logic of the Section 37B orders, as made before us. We keep the same, to be re determined in the remand proceedings”
Order of the Member (Technical)
I am also in agreement with the finding recorded by learned member (T) in para 3 (e) at page 7 that as there was no suppression of facts the proviso to section 11A (1) cannot be invoked for demand of duty. I also agree with the view taken by learned member (T) Shri S.S. sekhon that the demands have to be restricted to six months only following the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Muzzaffarnagar Steel reported in 1989 (44) ELT 552, Page, 555 as contained in page 8 of the order recorded by present case. Therefore, the extended period cannot be invoked for demand of duty in the absence of deliberate suppression or misstatement of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. The tribunal judgment in the case of Muzzaffarnagar steel was also followed by the west regional bench of the tribunal in the case of Bombay drums manufacturing co. v. cce reported in 2000 (124) ELT 908. further in the case of fricks India Ltd. V. CCE reported in 2000 (119) ELT 676, the bench presided over by Justice K. Sreedharn, Ex- president has held that if the goods are cleared pursuant to approval of the classification list it is not open to the department to justify demand of duty invoking the longer period of limitation in terms of Section 11A.
 
In view of the above discussion, The Tribunal agreed with the view taken by member (Technical) that the appeal is required to be remanded for re- determination of the classification issue and the demand of duty has to be restricted to six months period only.”
The Tribunal recorded final majority order wherein said that  the appeal is allowed by remand for re-determination of classification issue and the demand of duty has to be restricted only to six months period only as held by both learned members (Technical) in their respective orders.”
As is clear from the above, the majority decision was to the effect that the demands have to be restricted to 6 months period. Even the recording of the majority order clarifies that the duty demands have to be quantified for 6 months period.
The Tribunal also considered that the impugned order was being passed by the commissioner in de novo proceedings, he was bound by the observations made by the Tribunal and the findings arrived at. It was not open to the commissioner to restrict and quantify the demand for a period lesser than 6 months from the date of issuance of the SCN. Commissioner’s reliance to the tribunal’s decision in the case of southern switchgear ltd. for restricting the demand to a period from 14/07/94 to 31/07/94 is not proper inasmuch as in that case, directions were given by the earlier order of the Tribunal in the second round of litigation, the Tribunal observed that the directions given by the tribunal to lower authorities were required to be followed and the action on the part of the lower authorities to refuse to do the same amounts to judicial indiscipline in flouting the said directions. As such, the observations made by the tribunal in the case of southern switchgear ltd., in fact, advances the revenues case inasmuch as the adjudicating authority was bound to follow the directions of the tribunal, in the present case, which, in clear terms, held that the demand of duty is required to be fixed for a period of 6 months.
The tribunal further finds that the arguments made by respondent to seek support from the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of HM Bags etc. Cannot further his case inasmuch as, The appeal already stands decided by the earlier order of the Tribunal. The appellant fairly agrees that the earlier order of the Tribunal, directing confirmation of demand for six months, was not appealed against by them before any higher appellate forum. That being so, it has to be held that the same attained finality and the commissioner was bound by the directions as contained in the said order. For the same reasons, it is not open to us to go to the merits of the case and to re-decide the issue relating to the period for which the demand is required to be confirmed.
The Tribunal comes to the reasoning recorded in the earlier decision of the tribunal, as adopted by the members, the same makes it clear that the Board’s circular has to be given prospective effect only. Having held that the earlier order, in clear terms, restricts the demand to a period of 6 months, the tribunal need not examine the intention of the members writing the judgment.
 For the same reasons, The Tribunal also finds that the revenue’s prayer for confirmation of entire duty by invoking the extended period cannot be accepted as the earlier order of the Tribunal had categorically held that extended period is not available to the revenue and demand should be restricted to six months period.
The Tribunal further considered that at this stage, appellant has also made reference to the fact that the review order is not appropriately signed by the proper officer. However, apart from the fact that such preliminary objection was raised at the end of the proceedings, the tribunal find no justification in the above objection of appellant  inasmuch as the review order issued OSD (Review) bears the signature of the OSD, showing the signature of Member (L&J). In the absence of any doubt about the correctness of the same, The Tribunal do not find it correct to call for the records as suggested by the appellant.
The Tribunal further finds that In view of the above, revenue’s appeal allowed and the matter is remanded for quantification of duty for a period of 6 months in respect of each SCNs issued to the respondents.

Decision:-  Appeal is disposed of.

Comment:- The analogy drawn from this case is that the whenever the case is remanded to the lower authorities subject to some specifications then the lower authorities are to pass the order within the boundaries of specifications drawn by the Tribunal. Any order passed in violation of such remand conditions is liable to be set aside or remanded again.
 
 
Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com