Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 1206
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. JAICHANDREN & S. VIMALA, JJ.
M/s. Oerlikon Friction Systems (India) Ltd. – Appellant
Vs.
The Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench – Respondents
C.M.A. Nos. 35 and 36 of 2016
Decided On : 21-01-2016
For the Appellant : Mr. K. Jayachandran.
For the Respondent: Mr. K. Mohanamurali.
The court emphasized that the instructions contained in CESTAT F.No.974/PR (CEGAT)/86, dated 21.2.1986, did not create certain rights for the appellant to claim that it had been aggrieved by the common order passed by the Tribunal.
Headnote:
Early Hearing Application - Customs Excise and Service Tax - The court dismissed the early hearing applications filed by the appellant, stating that the instructions contained in CESTAT F.No.974/PR (CEGAT)/86, dated 21.2.1986, did not create certain rights for the appellant to claim that it had been aggrieved by the common order passed by the Tribunal. The court found no merit in the appeals and dismissed them.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, engaged in job work for automobile component manufacturers, filed appeals against the demand of differential duties of central excise and penalties imposed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The appellant also filed an application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the amount during the pendency of the appeal. The Tribunal granted waiver and stay but dismissed the applications for early hearing of the appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that no substantial questions of law had arisen for its decision in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. It held that the instructions contained in CESTAT F.No.974/PR (CEGAT)/86, dated 21.2.1986, did not create certain rights for the appellant to claim that it had been aggrieved by the common order passed by the Tribunal. The court concluded that there was no merit in the appeals and dismissed them.
Issues: The substantial questions of law raised by the appellant were whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the applications for early hearing without reasons and whether the Tribunal was right in rejecting the early hearing applications without assigning any reasons when it is a statutory application filed under Section 35B(7) of the Central Excise Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the instructions contained in CESTAT F.No.974/PR (CEGAT)/86, dated 21.2.1986, did not have the force of law creating certain rights for the appellant to claim that it had been aggrieved by the common order passed by the Tribunal. It also found that the order dismissing the applications for early hearing, although cryptic, did not provide grounds for the appellant to be aggrieved.
Final Decision: The appeals filed by the appellants were found to have no merit and were dismissed by the court. No costs were awarded.
M. JAICHANDREN, J.
1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.35 of 2016, has been filed against the Miscellaneous Order No.40940/2015, dated 24.6.2015, passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai insofar as it relates to the rejection of the early hearing application.
2. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.36 of 2016, has been filed against the Miscellaneous Order No.40941/2015, dated 24.6.2015, passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, insofar as it relates to the rejection of the early hearing application.
3. It has been stated that the appellant is engaged in job work for the manufacturers of automobile components. The appellant had filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, against the Order in Original Nos.11 & 12 of 2014, dated 28.5.2014, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai, confirming the demand of differential duties of central excise said to be payable by the appellant, along with the interest, on the ground that the appellant was required to discharge the central excise, on the cost on the inputs supplied free of cost by the principal manufacturers, under the job work provisions as per Notification No.214/86 CE and Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant had also been imposed with penalties, under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Along with the said appeal, the appellant had filed an application for waiver of pre-deposit and for the stay of the recovery of the amount said to be payable by the appellant, during the pendency of the appeal. Early hearing petitions had also been filed by the appellant. The Tribunal had granted orders granting waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the amount said to be due from the appellant during the pendency of the appeal. However, it had dismissed the applications for the early hearing of the appeals stating that they had no merits.
4. In such circumstances, the appellant had filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals before this Court raising the following substantial questions of law.
“A. Whether the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the applications for early hearing filed by the appellant, without any reasons, when the applications have been filed satisfying the situations stated in their own instructions in CESTAT F.No.974/PR(CEGAT)/86, dated 21.2.1986 for grant of early hearing?
B. Whether the Tribunal is right in rejecting the early hearing applications without assigning any reasons when it is a statutory application filed under Section 35B(7) of the Central Excise Act?”
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants had submitted that the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, had passed a cryptic and non-speaking order, while dismissing the early hearing applications. He had further submitted that the Tribunal had failed to follow Rule 28C of the Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982. As such, the Tribunal ought to have passed a detailed order giving reasons, while dismissing the said applications.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants had further submitted that the Tribunal had failed to take into consideration the instructions contained in CESTAT F.No.974/PR (CEGAT)/86, dated 21.2.1986, wherein, the circumstances under which early hearing applications could be filed by the assessee or the Department had been enumerated. Since the appellant had satisfied the conditions contained in the said instructions, the applications filed by the appellant for the early hearing of the appeals ought to have been allowed.
7. On hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, we are not convinced that substantial questions of law had arisen for the decision of this Court in the present Civil Miscellaneous A
