Tribunal should take informed decision considering the legal position.
Facts- By this appeal, the Commissioner of Central Excise has challenged the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai. The Tribunal, by the impugned order has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-assessee and has remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals). The respondent-assessee, Global Ispat Ltd., has a unit at Cuncolim Industrial Estate, Salcete Goa. The respondent-assessee was engaged in manufacturing of mild steel ingots. The said goods were amenable to the provisions of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 under Chapter 72 thereof and the central excise duty was payable on their final products.
Held– The Hon’ble high court held that the Chapter VIA of the Central Excise Act deals with appeals. The Section 35B provides for appeals to the Appellate Tribunal from the orders passed by the Commissioner, the composition of the Appellate Authority and the Act also provides for limitations. Section 35C deals with the order of the Appellate Tribunal and the procedure of the Appellate Tribunal is laid down under Section 35D. If no appeal is filed from the decision by the Appellate Tribunal then the decision by the Appellate Tribunal becomes final and generally the Tribunal gives a deference to the decision on the legal question by the Coordinate Benches. Therefore in the appeal, the Tribunal is expected to deal with the questions of law and facts before it, in detail. It is upon an informed decision is given after considering the legal and factual questions, if a question of law arises that an appeal lies to this Court on limited grounds. In the present case, the Tribunal has not considered the relevant legal position with reference to the facts and the scheme of Rule 96ZO(3) and Section 3A(4). The Tribunal has held that legal position stands concluded and only a factual enquiry is needed, without considering the decisions of the Supreme Court in Venus Castings and Supreme Steels. Since that basis is incorrect, it is appropriate that the Tribunal takes an informed decision considering the legal position. This primary task must be done by the Tribunal. We therefore intend to remand the matter to the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 5 February, 2008 is set aside.