Partly allowed

M/S P.R. Products v. Commissioner of Customs

Punjab & Haryana HC28 Aug 2018CUSAP/6/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed two appeals leaving a CESTAT order of remand that unnecessarily sent the matter to Adjudicating Authority while Supreme Court had stayed the Delhi HC judgment that was the subject of the reference.

What did the court decide?

Appeals allowed, impugned CESTAT order set aside, matter remitted to CESTAT to decide on merits after Supreme Court judgment in Mangali Impex case.

M/S P.R. Products Vs Commissioner of Customs — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

CUSAP No.6 of 2018 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CUSAP No.6 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision.28.08.2018

M/s P.R. Products

...Appellant

Commissioner of Customs ...Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate for the appellant.

¶11

Mr. Anshuman Chopra, Advocate for the respondent.

¶12

-.-

¶13

RAJESH BINDAL J.

¶14

This order will dispose of two appeals bearing Nos.6 of 2018 and 58 of 2018. Both the assessee as well the revenue have filed appeals against the order dated 19.07.2017 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short “CESTAT”) in appeal No.C/50/2012, vide which, the order passed by the Commissioner has been set aside and the matter has been remitted back to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh decision.

¶15

Both the parties are agreed that the order of remand passed by the Tribunal was not required, as the issue involved is pending consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court against the views expressed by the Delhi High Court in “Mangali Impex Limited Vs. Union of India 2016 (335) ELT 605 (Del.)”.

¶16

The submission is that once the legal issues involved in the appeal are to be decided keeping in view the decision of Hon'ble

¶17

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.08.31 12:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CUSAP No.6 of 2018 (O&M) -2-

¶19

the Supreme Court in Mangali Impex Limited's case (supra), there was no need to remand the case back to the Adjudicating Authority, as in that process, the litigation will start from Adjudicating Authority afresh, whereas it can be decided by the Tribunal after the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court Mangali Impex Limited's case (supra). Operation of the judgment of Delhi High Court in Mangali Impex Limited's case (supra) has also been stayed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Reference has also been made to order passed by Delhi High Court in CUSAA No.57 of 2017 titled as “Vipul Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and others” decided on 20.11.2017 where identical orders passed by the Tribunal remanding cases back to the Adjudicating Authority were set aside and the matters were directed to be decided on merits by the Tribunal.

¶20

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find merit in the submissions made by them. Once the legal issue, which is subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal, is pending consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the Tribunal itself should have decided the cases on merits after the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court instead of remanding those cases back to the Adjudicating Authority.

¶21

The process adopted by the Tribunal apparently is to dispose of the cases pending before it without application of mind. That approach should have been avoided. Even the order passed by the Tribunal only states that the Adjudicating Authority shall decide the matters afresh after decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mangali Impex Limited's case. In fact, vide similar orders, the

¶22

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.08.31 12:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

CUSAP No.6 of 2018 (O&M)

¶24

-3-

¶25

Tribunal had disposed of more than 50 cases.

¶26

For the reasons mentioned above, both the appeals are allowed. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to be decided on merits after decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mangali Impex Limited's case.

¶27

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE

¶28

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE

¶29

August 28, 2018 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶30

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.08.31 12:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

M/S P.R. Products v. Commissioner of Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S P.R. Products v. Commissioner of Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Grain Market Association Vs U.T. Chandigarh and Ors.

M/S Gunno Knits Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

M/S Shankra Fab Processors Pvt.Ltd. Vs State of Haryana and Another

Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Dehli-Iv Vs M/S Agilent Technologies

Commissioner of Customs Vs M/S Tl Verma & Co.

Jagtar Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.