Commissioner Of CGST And Cx, Howrah Commissionerate vs. M/S Rustech Products Private Limited
Original PDF →Facts
The Revenue, Commissioner of CGST and Cx, Howrah Commissionerate, filed an appeal before the Calcutta High Court against an order passed by the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). The Tribunal had allowed an appeal filed by the respondent assessee, M/s Rustech Products Private Limited, by relying on the Gujarat High Court's decision in Indsur Global Ltd. vs. Union of India. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred by not appreciating Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and by not hearing the appeal on merits. The Tribunal's decision was also influenced by this Court's decision in Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India. The Supreme Court had, however, stayed the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Indsur Global Limited.
Held
The Court allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue. It set aside the order passed by the learned Tribunal and restored the appeal to the Tribunal's file. The matter is to be kept pending before the Tribunal and will be taken up for decision only after the judgment is rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal No.16523/2015 and other connected matters. The substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue were left open. The reasoning was based on the fact that the Supreme Court had stayed the Gujarat High Court's decision in Indsur Global Limited, which was the basis for the Tribunal's order. The Court noted a precedent where a similar appeal was remanded to the Tribunal to be kept pending until the Supreme Court's decision. The issue of whether the Tribunal was required to hear the appeal on merits was implicitly addressed by remanding the matter for future decision.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Learned Tribunal committed a gross error of law by rejecting the department's appeal without appreciating the provision of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002? 2. Whether the Learned Tribunal is required under the law to hear the appeal on merits? 3. Whether the rejection of the department's appeal by the Learned Tribunal is correct, considering the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted a stay on the order of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Indsur Global Limited vs. Union of India? The appellant (Revenue) argued that the Tribunal erred in rejecting their appeal without considering Rule 8(3A) and by not hearing the appeal on merits. They also questioned the correctness of the Tribunal's rejection in light of the Supreme Court's stay on the Indsur Global Limited judgment. The respondent (assessee) did not present any arguments as the notices sent to them were returned. The judgment does not record any arguments from the respondent.
Sections Cited
Rule 8(3A), Section 35G, Section 130
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
OD-20 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURI ICTION [CENTRAL EXCISE] ORIGINAL SIDE
CEXA/21/2024 IA NO: GA/1/2024 Commissioner of CGST and Cx, Howrah Commissionerate VS M/s Rustech Products Private Limited
BEFORE : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM -A N D- HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA DATE : 9th July, 2024. Appearance : Mr. K.K. Maiti, Adv. Mr. Tapan Bhanja, Adv. …for appellant
The Court :- This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the Learned Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Zonal Bench, Kolkata, in Excise Appeal No. 78314 of 2018. The revenue has suggested the following substantial questions of law for consideration :- i. Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed gross error of law by rejecting the appeal of the department by not appreciating the provision of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rule, 2002 ? ii. Whether the Learned Tribunal is required under the law to hear
the appeal on merits or not ?
2 iii. Whether the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted stay of the order of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the said issue in the case of Appeal by the Learned Tribunal is correct or not ?
We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. The two notices sent to the respondent are returned. This appeal filed by the department under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 is directed against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Zonal Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) dated 13.10.2023. By the said order, the appeal filed by the respondent/assessee was allowed by following the decision of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Indsur Global Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2014 (310) E.L.T. 833 (Guj.)]. The learned Tribunal has also taken note of the decision of this Court in Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. [2017 (8) TMI 1515 - Calcutta High Court]. It cannot be disputed that the decision in the case of Indsur Global (supra) was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal No.16523/2015 and by order dated 24th September, 2015 the Hon’ble Surpeme Court has stayed the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat. The decision of this Court in Goyal MG Gases (supra) appears to have been rendered taking note of the decision of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Indsur Global (supra). When similar appeal came up before this Court on earlier occasion, the Court has set aside the order of the learned Tribunal and remanded the matter
3 back to the Tribunal to be kept pending before the Tribunal to be taken up for decision after the judgment is rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. We refer to the order in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur Vs. M/s. KIC Metaliks Ltd., in CEXA/20/2023 dated 24th May, 2024. In the light of the above, the appeal filed by the department is allowed. The order passed by the learned Tribunal is set aside and the appeal is restored to the file of the learned Tribunal and the matter shall be kept pending and taken up after the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal No.16523/2015 and other connected matters. The substantial questions of law which have been raised are left open. The connected application [GA/1/2024] stands closed.
. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
pkd/GH
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.