Case Details: Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nasik Versus Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd. (2025) 28 Centax 83 (Bom.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.
- Shri P.S. Cardozo, for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri M.H. Patil a/w. Viraj Reshmawalla a/w. Kiran Chavan, Advs., for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee, engaged in the manufacture of poly tubes, micro tubes, and HDPE pipes, classified these goods under Heading 3197 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, attracting 20% excise duty for officially cleared goods. However, the same goods were clandestinely removed and classified under Heading 8424, which was exempt from duty under Notification Nos. 46/94-C.E., dated 01-03-1994, and 56/95-C.E., dated 16-03-1995. The adjudicating authority confirmed a demand under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, based on the alleged dual classification used to evade duty. On appeal, CESTAT summarily allowed the assessee’s appeal, stating that the demand for clandestine removal was unsustainable as the goods were eligible for exemption. The Revenue’s Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application, pointing out that the tribunal had ignored the issue of clandestine removal and the impact of dual classification, was dismissed without detailed reasoning. An appeal against such order of tribunal was filed in Bombay High Court.
CESTAT Held
The High Court held that CESTAT’s order was cryptic, lacked proper reasoning, and failed to address key issues, including the evidence of clandestine removal and the different classifications adopted for the same goods. As a final fact-finding authority, CESTAT was required to adjudicate all relevant aspects and provide a well-reasoned decision. Since it had summarily dismissed the Revenue’s contentions without proper discussion, the High Court quashed the order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing CESTAT to pass a reasoned order dealing with all issues.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2008 (221) E.L.T. 531 (Tribunal) — Reversed [Paras 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 17]
- Commissioner v. Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd. – Miscellaneous Order, dated 22-2-2008 in Appeal Nos. E/137-145/2007-Mum by CESTAT — Reversed [paras 3, 4, 6, 8, 14, 18, 30]
List of Cases Cited
- Santosh Hazare v. Purushottam Tiwari — AIR 2001 SC 965 — Relied on [Paras 12, 19, 26, 29]
