HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.119 OF 2014 DATED:13.11.2014 Between:
M/s. MAA Mahamaya Industries Limited R.G. Peta Village L. Kota Mandal Vizianagaram – 525 161 Andhra Pradesh Rep. by authorized signatory Ch. Suryanarayana … Appellant And Commissioner of Central Excise Customs and Service Tax Visakhapatnam-I Commissionerate Central Excise Building Port Area Visakhapatnam Andhra Pradesh … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.119 OF 2014 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) Learned counsel for the Revenue is present.
2. After hearing Sri S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, and Sri V. Gopalakrishna Gokhaley, learned counsel for the respondent - Revenue, we admit the appeal on the following substantial question of law:
“Whether the learned Tribunal has jurisdiction to put a condition
of depositing Rs.5 crores for adjudicating the matter afresh by the Commissioner of Central Excise?”
3. Short fact is this. A show cause notice was issued by the Commissioner, which resulted against the appellant. An appeal was preferred before the Tribunal, which after considering the mater found that this case deserves fresh hearing by the Commissioner. So it remanded the matter to the Commissioner with a specific direction, namely, supply of materials and other things. The appellant would not have preferred the appeal but for the direction to deposit Rs.5 crores as a condition for fresh adjudication.
4. Sri S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, argued that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to ask the appellant to make the deposit as a pre-condition for fresh adjudication. Unlike Civil Court, the Tribunal, being an appellate authority, has no power or jurisdiction to ask for security before adjudication.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Tribunal thought the deposit as a measure of security and hence the aforesaid order was passed to meet the ends of justice.
6. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent and we find force in the submission of Sri S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, that the Tribunal does not have any inherent power like Civil Court to pass appropriate order for the ends of justice. The Tribunal is a creature of a Statute with specific powers mentioned in the Statute itself. From the grounds of the appeal and the Statute, we do not find any provision for depositing Rs.5 crores for adjudication and the same is without jurisdiction and accordingly the same is deleted.
7. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the order of the Tribunal is accepted except the modification as above. We accordingly direct the Commissioner to adjudicate the matter without any deposit. In any event, logically question of deposit does not arise unless there is an adjudication to suffer with the liability of the appellant before us. There will be no order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J 13.11.2014 bnr