M/S Emco LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA Through Joint Secretary And Others

Held

The Court held that the appeal had become infructuous. This conclusion was based on the subsequent order passed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Nashik, on March 29, 2018, which dropped the proceedings initiated against the appellant. The Tribunal had previously remanded the matter for fresh consideration, and upon such consideration, the Commissioner found the proceedings unsustainable. The Court accepted the submissions of both parties, acknowledging the revenue's admission of the situation. Consequently, the Court disposed of both the Civil Application and the Central Excise Appeal in light of these developments. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal and application accordingly, implying the return of the deposited amount was implicitly agreed upon given the dropping of proceedings and the appeal becoming infructuous. No specific issue was left undecided.

Facts

The appellant, M/s EMCO Ltd., filed a Central Excise Appeal before the Bombay High Court. The appeal was admitted on December 23, 2013, based on a substantial question of law. The Court permitted the appellant to deposit 50% of the duty amount, approximately Rs. 2.5 Lacs, within six weeks, without prejudice to their contentions. The appellant deposited Rs. 2,93,206/- on February 5, 2014. Subsequently, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) remanded the matter back to the authority for fresh consideration on November 10, 2017. Following this, the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Nashik, on March 29, 2018, dropped the proceedings initiated against the appellant, stating they were not sustainable. The appellant argued that these subsequent events rendered the appeal infructuous and prayed for the return of the deposited amount.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed before the High Court has become infructuous due to subsequent events, specifically the dropping of proceedings by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Nashik. (Question of law) Petitioner's Contention: The appellant argued that since the proceedings initiated against them have been dropped by the revenue authority, the appeal before the High Court has become infructuous. They relied on the order dated March 29, 2018, passed by the Commissioner, which dropped the proceedings. They further contended that the amount deposited in Court should be returned. Revenue's Contention: The respondents, through their counsel, fairly admitted the position presented by the appellant regarding the subsequent orders. No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue beyond this admission.