M/S.Kjr Poly Films PVT. LTD vs. The Commissioner Of Central Taxes

Facts

The appellant, M/s. KJR Poly Films Pvt. Ltd., challenged an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad. The CESTAT had passed an ex parte final order on February 18, 2019, as the appellant did not attend the proceedings. The appellant subsequently filed a rectification petition along with an application to recall the ex parte order, both of which were dismissed by the CESTAT on October 10, 2023. The appellant's appeal to the High Court concerns the period from 1996-97 to 2003-04. The appellant contended that proper notice was not served and that a Supreme Court judgment relied upon by the Tribunal was only applicable from July 1, 2000, not for the period prior to it.

Held

The High Court held that the first ground raised by the appellant, regarding non-service of notice, was not sustainable. The Court found that notices were sent by speed post to the appellant's known address, and subsequent communications and orders were also duly served and received. The appellant failed to provide documentary proof of non-delivery. However, regarding the second issue, the Court found merit in the appellant's argument that the Supreme Court judgment in M/s Super Synotex (India) Ltd. was stated to be applicable from July 1, 2000. Since the Tribunal had not discussed or deliberated on the applicability of this judgment for the period prior to July 1, 2000 (specifically from 1996-97 till June 30, 2000), the Court deemed it a fit case for remand. The impugned order was set aside to the limited extent of the period from 1996-97 till June 30, 2000, allowing the Tribunal to decide the applicability of the M/s Super Synotex judgment for this earlier period. The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on February 17, 2025, to expedite the proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the CESTAT's order dated February 18, 2019, was passed without proper service of notice upon the appellant, thereby violating principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the Supreme Court judgment in Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur vs. M/s Super Synotex (India) Ltd. is applicable only for the period from July 1, 2000, onwards, and not for periods prior to June 30, 2000, as contended by the appellant? Petitioner's Arguments: The appellant argued that the ex parte order was passed without proper service of notice. Furthermore, they contended that the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Super Synotex (India) Ltd. was applicable only from July 1, 2000, and therefore, the Tribunal erred in applying it to the period prior to that date, which included the assessment years 1996-97 to 2003-04. They highlighted that the Tribunal failed to discuss or deliberate on the applicability of this judgment for the period before July 1, 2000. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent (Revenue) submitted a memo indicating that notices were issued via speed post to the appellant's known address, and subsequent petitions and orders were also served and received at the same address. The respondent did not dispute that the M/s Super Synotex (India) Ltd. judgment might have limited applicability from July 1, 2000, but argued that the Tribunal's order did not discuss this aspect.