Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 1701
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
P. SAM KOSHY, NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, JJ
M/s.KJR Poly Films Pvt. Ltd – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner of Central Taxes – Respondent
CEA/18/2024
The court emphasized the necessity for proper notice and remitted the case to the Tribunal to determine the applicability of a Supreme Court judgment for the period prior to 01.07.2000.
Headnote:(A) Central Excise Act, 1944 - Section 35(G) - Appeal against order of CESTAT - The appellant challenged the ex parte order dated 18.02.2019, claiming improper service of notice and misapplication of law regarding the judgment of M/s Super Synotex (India) Ltd - The Tribunal failed to address the applicability of the Supreme Court's judgment for the period prior to 01.07.2000 - The court found the notice was properly served and the first ground was not sustainable - However, the court acknowledged the second ground regarding the applicability of the Supreme Court's judgment for the earlier period and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for further consideration. (Paras 3-9)
(B) Procedural Fairness - The court emphasized the importance of proper notice and the need for the Tribunal to address all relevant periods in its decisions. (Paras 4-8)
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed an appeal against the CESTAT's ex parte order, claiming lack of notice and misapplication of a Supreme Court judgment regarding excise duties for the period 1996-97 to 2003-04.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the notice was properly served and the first ground was dismissed, but remitted the case to the Tribunal to consider the applicability of the Supreme Court's judgment for the period prior to 01.07.2000.
Issues: The main issues were whether the notice was properly served and whether the Supreme Court's judgment applied to the period before 01.07.2000.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the notice was properly served, but the Tribunal must address the applicability of the Supreme Court's judgment for the earlier period.
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)
Heard Mr. Karan Talwar, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. Perused the record.
2. The challenge in the present central excise appeal is to the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Southern Regional Bench, Hyderabad (CESTAT) dated 18.02.2019 and the subsequent rectification order passed on 30.10.2023.
3. From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears what was questioned was the final order passed by the CESTAT dated 18.02.2019. The said order was passed ex parte as the notices issued by the Tribunal went unattended by the appellant and the Tribunal finally passed the order dated 18.02.2019 and the same was also sent at the address of the appellant. Thereafter, a rectification petition was filed by the appellant along with an application for recalling of the ex parte order dated 18.02.2019. Both these applications were together taken up and a common order was passed on 30.10.2023 dismissing the same, leading to the filing of the instant appeal under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
4. There were two major grounds raised by the appellant, one that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal on 18.02.2019 was without proper service of notice upon the appellant and the second ground was that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur II vs. M/s Super Synotex (India) Ltd, [1[2014(301) ELT 273 (SC)]] would be applicable only for the period from 01.07.2000 onwards and would not be applicable for the period prior to 31.06.2000. In the instant case, the relevant period for which the impugned orders have been passed are spreading from 1996-97 to 2003-04. The fact that the judgment of M/s Super Synotex (India) Ltd (supra) relied upon by the Tribunal while deciding the appeal at the first instance being applicable for a period only prior to 01.07.2000 has not been disputed by the learned Standing Counsel for the department. However, as regards the applicability of the said judgment for the period prior to 31.06.2000 has not been discussed, deliberated or referred to in the impugned order of the Tribunal, neither at the first instance nor at the subsequent stage of the rectification petition or the recall petition filed by the appellant.
5. As regards the ground of notices having not been served upon the appellant, the respondent has filed memo dated 20.01.2025 showing the notices to have been issued by speed post to the appellant and also the impugned orders having been issued at the known address. Further, it also reflects that the subsequent rectification petition and the recall petition have also been filed by the appellant from the same address and the notices and the subsequent orders also have been issued at the same address, all of which have been duly served and received by the appellant. We see no reason why it should be presumed that the notice issued at the first instance was not served upon the appellant. The appellant also has not made any effort in producing documentary proof or the necessary information from the post office concerned so far as the notices so issued have not been delivered to the addressee.
6. In the absence of anything as such made available by the appellant, the first ground raised by the appellant of having not been served with notice is not sustainable and the same stands answered in the negative.
7. However, as regards the second ground of the issue involved in the case, which according to the Tribunal, is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Super Synotex (India) Ltd (supra), since there seems to be a consensus so far as the said principles laid down in the said judgment being applicable only from 01.07.2000, we find some strength in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant when it comes to the
