Case Law Details
C.C.E. & S.T Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
Introduction: In the appeal case between C.C.E. & S.T and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, the Commissioner (Appeals) decided to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for a thorough examination of documents related to the issue of unjust enrichment. This decision was appealed by the revenue, arguing that the Commissioner (Appeals) had overstepped his power by remanding the case instead of delivering a final decision.
Analysis: The main point of contention in this case revolves around the powers of the Commissioner (Appeals). The revenue argues that the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have remanded the case but rather, should have made a final decision. However, the CESTAT Ahmedabad, in agreement with previous judgments, upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)’ decision, ruling that the authority does indeed possess the power to remand cases for further examination by the Adjudicating Authority.
The case illustrates the complexities involved in appeals cases and underscores the necessity for a comprehensive review of evidence, particularly in issues of unjust enrichment. It also reaffirms the powers of the Commissioner (Appeals) in terms of remanding cases for re-evaluation.
Conclusion: The CESTAT Ahmedabad’s decision to uphold the Commissioner (Appeals)’ decision to remand the case involving C.C.E. & S.T and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd highlights the need for thorough consideration and examination of all pertinent evidence in complex cases. It reaffirms the powers of the Commissioner (Appeals) and underscores the necessity of meticulous legal process to ensure just and fair outcomes. This ruling sets an important precedent for future cases involving issues of unjust enrichment and the process of appeals.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT AHMEDABAD ORDER
This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal passed by Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to examine the documents on the issue of unjust enrichment and to decide refund matter a fresh. In present appeal revenue has raised the only ground that Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to remand the matter and he should have decided the appeal before him finally.
2. When the matter was called out none appeared on behalf of the Respondent. However, the Respondent sought for an adjournment on the ground that on the identical issue the Revenue’s appeal is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. We do not find any substance in the reason mentioned in the adjournment letter. Since the present matter is not on the merit of the case but only on the power of remand of the Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, we are of the view the appeal can be disposed of.
3. Shri Prabhat K Rameshwaram, Learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the grounds of appeal.
4. e have carefully considered the submission made by Learned AR and perused the record. We find that the limited issue raised by the revenue in their grounds of appeal is that the Commissioner (Appeals) instead of remanding the matter should have decided finally as he has no power to remand the matter. We find that firstly, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly remanded the appeal on the facts that the lower authority has not appreciated the documentary evidence with regard to unjust enrichment which needs to be re-considered by the Adjudicating Authority. As regard the issue that whether the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has power to remand the matter, this issue is no longer res-integra in the light of following judgments :-
- Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-I Vs. Medico Labs.-2004 (173) E.L.T. 117 (Guj.)
- Commissioner of C. Ex. &Cus.,Bbsr- II Vs. Indian AluminiumCo.Ltd. 2002 (144) E.L.T. 97 (Tri. – Kolkata)
- Union of India Vs. UmeshDhaimode – 1998 (98) E.L.T. 584 (S.C.)
4.1 In view of the above judgements, it is settled that Commissioner (Appeals) has indeed power to remand the matter to Adjudicating Authority to decide afresh. Moreover, by remanding the matter to the Adjudicating Authority there is nothing prejudicial to the Revenue. For this reason also there is no merit in the revenue’s appeal.
5. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld. Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. The Adjudicating Authority now should expeditiously pass de-novo adjudicating order in the terms of the impugned order.
(Pronounced in the open court on 21.06.2023)
