P. R. Ramachandra Menon, CJ
1. This appeal has been preferred in terms of the Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The factual matrix reveals that there was an inspection
made by the Preventive Officers of the Central Excise Department in the Raipur Division of the Appellant-Assessee's Company on 13.02.2013, when
some incriminating materials were collected; which included some 'loose sheets' as well, with regard to the business transactions of the Assessee.
Pursuant to the said search, statements were taken from different persons, based on which Annexure P/2 show cause notice was issued on
08.08.2013. After getting the explanation of the Appellant, the matter was considered and finalised by the Adjudicating Authority as per Annexure P/3
order dated 31.12.2015, whereby a finding was rendered to the effect that there was 'clandestine removal' of materials/goods without satisfying the
duty, which otherwise was exigible to duty.
2. Met with the situation, the Appellant filed an appeal against the verdict passed by the Commissioner by approaching the Customs, Excise & Service
Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short, 'the Tribunal') where the appeal was numbered as Excise Appeal No. E/50432/2016-
EX[DB]. After considering the issue projected in similar appeals, the above appeal preferred by the Appellant was tagged alongwith the connected
appeals (altogether six appeals), leading to the final order dated 21.12.2018, whereby the findings rendered by the Commissioner were upheld under
some heads; while some interference/modifications were made under some other heads.
3. Grievance of the Appellant is that the case of the Appellant was never considered or decided, as discernible from paragraph 28 onwards of the
order passed by the Tribunal. At the same time, the Revenue is pursuing further steps and is after the Appellant, stating that the verdict passed by the
Commissioner has become final, having left untouched; which made the Appellant to approach this Court by filling the appeal suggesting some
questions as the substantial question of law.
4. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on the last occasion, we expressed our doubts as to the questions suggested by the
Appellant, to be treated as substantial question of law, pursuant to which a new substantial question of law is also sought to be raised by filing I.A. No.
01 of 2019. The three questions originally suggested by the Appellant and the additional question now raised in the I.A. 01 of 2019 are in the following
terms:
Original Substantial Questions of Law : ""a) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CESTAT has passed a cryptic and non-
speaking order without showing any reasoning or deliberation of the materials that were placed before it for consideration?
b) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CESTAT had committed serious infirmity in appreciation of evidence by
overlooking material evidence vital to determination of issues involved?
c) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CESTAT had made patent error in confirming the demand without any
corroborative or affirmative evidence?
Additional Question of Law :
In the absence of any reasons much less discussion and finding, whether impugned judgment is liable to be sustainable?
5. During the course of submissions, we still maintained our doubts and required the learned counsel for the Appellant to substantiate the extent of the
substantial questions of law.
6. The learned counsel submits that the difficulty of the Appellant is by virtue of the fact that absolutely no discussion is there in the common verdict
passed by the Tribunal, with regard to case projected by the Appellant and there is no reference to the Appellant's case anywhere, but for mentioning
the case number in the 'face sheet' of the common order.
7. We heard Shri Maneesh Sharma, the learned standing counsel for the Department as well. To appreciate the submissions made on behalf of the
Appellant, we have gone through the order under challenge. It is seen that after the general discussion, the Tribunal has taken up all the matters, case
by case, as discussed in paragraphs 28, 29 and 30. Paragraph 28 deals with Appeal No. E/50477/2016-EX[DB] which is filed by M/s Hanukripa Ispat
Pvt. Limited i.e., the first one out of the six cases mentioned on the top of the face sheet. The discussion in paragraph 29 is in respect of the Appeal
No. E/50476/2016-Ex[DB] filed by Shankar Lal Jain, Appeal No. E/50489/2016-EX[DB] filed by Kailash Chandra Agrawal and Appeal No.
E/50491/2016-EX[DB] filed by Bajrang Lal Jain. These are the cases at the 1st, 3rd and 4th slots / levels mentioned on the top of the face sheet.
Paragraph 30 of the order passed by the Tribunal deals with Appeal No. E/50497/2016- Ex[DB] filed by Rooplaxmi Industries India Pvt. Ltd. which is
the 5th case mentioned on the top of the face sheet of the order passed by the Tribunal. There is no discussion with regard to the case of the
Appellant anywhere, but for the discussion in respect of the other five appeals.
8. The learned standing counsel for the Respondent/Revenue concedes to the above factual position, that there is no discussion with regard to the
appeal preferred by the Appellant in the common order.
9. In the above circumstances, we find considerable force in the submission made by the Appellant to the effect that the common order dated
21.12.2018 passed by the Tribunal cannot be said to be an order in the appeal preferred by the Appellant which is pending for consideration as
E/50432/2016-EX [DB].
10. We are of the view that the matter requires to be reconsidered only insofar as the appeal of the Appellant is concerned. We do not intend to say
anything with regard to the merits discussed in the connected appeals, as it is not a matter of consideration before this Court, as of now. It is for the
Tribunal to make necessary corrections with regard to the number of the appeal shown in the cause title of Annexure P/1 order and to have it
confined to the remaining five appeals, for clarity of records.
11. The Tribunal shall consider the merits of the case raised by the Appellant in Appeal No. E/50432/2016-EX[DB] after affording opportunity of
hearing to the Appellant and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.
12. The matter stand remitted to the above limited extent, without expressing anything with regard to the merits involved.