By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, MAR 16, 2015: IT is raining criticisms - On 13.03.2015 we reported the decision in Nidhi Textiles - 2015-TIOL-597-HC-MUM-CUS wherein Bombay High Court observed - We wonder if the Tribunal has passed a lengthy order (of 66 pages) at the interlocutory stage, when will it get time to take up Appeals for final disposal .

In the present case, the CESTAT, in the matter of Appeal No. E/384/2009-Mumthe Tribunal had on 26.07.2013 passed the following order-

"...14. Since the matter is more than 12 years old and have already been adjudicated thrice by the Commissioner and this is the third time the matter is coming up before the Tribunal, we direct the Commissioner to examine all the invoices now made available by the appellants and examine the same with reference to the law and decide about the duty liability without considering the 14 Declarations filed. Appellant shall extend all cooperation in the exercise. If the Commissioner from the analysis finds any other duty is recoverable the same may be communicated to the appellants. Similarly, if Commissioner finds any discrepancy in the details submitted by the appellant the same should be communicated to them and after giving the appellant an opportunity to rebut the same, the matter may be decided. The adjudication order to lists out clearly the issues and the amount involved on every issue and for any reason if any document or any details submitted by the assessee is not accepted findings should be given. The liability to penalty will be recomputed based upon the duty liability so arrived…."

The assessee did not like this remand and is, therefore, before the Bombay High Court. The appeal was entertained on the following substantial question of law:

"Whether in the facts and circumstances and in law so also in the light of the conclusions recorded in para 14 and reproduced above, was the Tribunal justified in sending the matter back to the Commissioner and on a limited issue?"

The High Court, after hearing both sides, observed -

"We do not understand as to why a matter of twelve (12) years old having been adjudicated thrice by the Commissioner and brought before the Tribunal should have been again remanded. Further, when it was examination of some invoices and made available by the Assessee, then the Tribunal should have scrutinised them. Eventually, it was called upon to decide the question of law. The duty liability, if any, could have been ascertained and in the manner set out by parties. Both did not seek a remand but possibly desired that the Tribunal itself should put an end to the dispute between them…"

The order of the CESTAT was quashed and the Tribunal was directed to rehear the Appeal of the Assessee on merits and in accordance with law.

(See 2015-TIOL-630-HC-MUM-CX)