Telangana High Court
M/S.Kjr Poly Films Pvt. Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Central Taxes on 27 January, 2025
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO
NANDIKONDA
C.E.A.No.18 OF 2024
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)
Heard Mr. Karan Talwar, learned counsel for the appellant
and Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel
for the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. Perused the
record.
2. The challenge in the present central excise appeal is to the
order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate
Tribunal, Southern Regional Bench, Hyderabad (CESTAT) dated
18.02.2019 and the subsequent rectification order passed on
30.10.2023.
3. From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears what was
questioned was the final order passed by the CESTAT dated
18.02.2019. The said order was passed ex parte as the notices
issued by the Tribunal went unattended by the appellant and the
Tribunal finally passed the order dated 18.02.2019 and the same
was also sent at the address of the appellant. Thereafter, a
rectification petition was filed by the appellant along with an
application for recalling of the ex parte order dated 18.02.2019.
Both these applications were together taken up and a common
order was passed on 30.10.2023 dismissing the same, leading to
the filing of the instant appeal under Section 35(G) of the Central
Excise Act, 1944.
4. There were two major grounds raised by the appellant, one
that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal on 18.02.2019 was
without proper service of notice upon the appellant and the second
ground was that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur II vs. M/s Super
Synotex (India) Ltd 1 would be applicable only for the period from
01.07.2000 onwards and would not be applicable for the period
prior to 31.06.2000. In the instant case, the relevant period for
which the impugned orders have been passed are spreading from
1996-97 to 2003-04. The fact that the judgment of M/s Super
Synotex (India) Ltd (supra) relied upon by the Tribunal while
deciding the appeal at the first instance being applicable for a
[2014(301) ELT 273 (SC)]
period only prior to 01.07.2000 has not been disputed by the
learned Standing Counsel for the department. However, as regards
the applicability of the said judgment for the period prior to
31.06.2000 has not been discussed, deliberated or referred to in the
impugned order of the Tribunal, neither at the first instance nor
at the subsequent stage of the rectification petition or the recall
petition filed by the appellant.
5. As regards the ground of notices having not been served
upon the appellant, the respondent has filed memo dated
20.01.2025 showing the notices to have been issued by speed post
to the appellant and also the impugned orders having been issued at
the known address. Further, it also reflects that the subsequent
rectification petition and the recall petition have also been filed by
the appellant from the same address and the notices and the
subsequent orders also have been issued at the same address, all of
which have been duly served and received by the appellant.
We see no reason why it should be presumed that the notice
issued at the first instance was not served upon the appellant.
The appellant also has not made any effort in producing
documentary proof or the necessary information from the post
office concerned so far as the notices so issued have not been
delivered to the addressee.
6. In the absence of anything as such made available by the
appellant, the first ground raised by the appellant of having not
been served with notice is not sustainable and the same stands
answered in the negative.
7. However, as regards the second ground of the issue involved
in the case, which according to the Tribunal, is squarely covered by
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
M/s Super Synotex (India) Ltd (supra), since there seems to be a
consensus so far as the said principles laid down in the said
judgment being applicable only from 01.07.2000, we find some
strength in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant
when it comes to the applicability of the said judgment for the
period prior to 01.07.2000.
8. Admittedly, in the instant case, the period involved is
1996-97 to 2003-04 and if the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of M/s Super Synotex (India) Ltd
(supra) is made applicable from 01.07.2000, there has to be
decision of the Tribunal so far as the earlier period is concerned
i.e., for the period 1996-97 till 31.06.2000 in respect of the
appellant is concerned. The Tribunal having not discussed,
deliberated or referred to the said aspect, we are of the considered
opinion that it is a fit case where the matter can be remitted back to
the Tribunal to the limited extent to ascertain whether the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Super Synotex
(India) Ltd (supra) would also be applicable for the period prior to
31.06.2000 also or not.
9. The instant appeal, to the aforesaid extent, stands partly
allowed. The impugned order stands set aside to the extent of the
period from 1996-97 till 31.06.2000, leaving it open for the
Tribunal to decide the applicability of the said judgment for the
aforesaid period. Considering the fact that the issue being more
than a decade old, in order to expedite the proceedings and to
ensure that there will be no further protracting of the matter,
we direct the appellant as well the as respondent to enter
appearance before the Tribunal on 17.02.2025. It is made clear that
there shall be no further necessity of issuance of any further
notice of appearance for the appellant before the Tribunal and the
Tribunal, in turn, is expected to take a decision on the limited
aspect of the applicability of the judgment in the case of M/s Super
Synotex (India) Ltd (supra) for the period prior to 31.06.2000 so
far as the appellant is concerned.
10. With the aforesaid order and direction, the central excise
appeal stands partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
__________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
_______________________________
NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J
27.01.2025
Lrkm
