IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.E.A. No. 20 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: March 25, 2009 M/s Shiv Sewa Sadan …Appellant Versus The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant appeal filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) is directed against order dated 4.8.2008 (A-3), passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’) in Custom Appeal No. 463 of 2008. The Tribunal has accepted the request made by the appellant for remand of the case for reconsideration and also noticed that a huge demand has been confirmed with penalties without the benefit of reply or hearing the appellant. It also recorded the fact that remand could be ordered on certain conditions and directed the appellant to deposit a sum of C.E.A. No. 20 of 2009 Rs. 10,00,000/- within three weeks from the date of the order i.e. 4.8.2008 and to report compliance before the Commissioner on 10.10.2008. The appellant was also required to file reply within four weeks from the date of the order to the Commissioner. It was subject to the aforesaid condition that order of the original authority was set aside with a direction to consider the entire matter afresh after affording reasonable opportunity to the appellant. Mr. Akshay Bhan, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that once the remand order has been passed then no condition of pre-deposit could have been imposed by the Tribunal. According to the learned counsel such a requirement of pre-deposit would be without jurisdiction because such condition could be imposed in the event when the appeal is pending before the Tribunal. In that regard he has referred to the provisions of Section 35(C) of the Act. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and are of the view that the instant appeal does not warrant admission because the impugned order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity. On the request made by the appellant, the Tribunal has referred the matter back to the original authority because no proper opportunity of hearing was granted. Moreover, the demand of Custom duty raised by the original authority is over Rs. 1 crore and an equal amount of penalty under Section 11A of the Customs Act, 1962 has also been imposed beside the demand of interest and Education Cess. The amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- required by the Tribunal to be deposited by the appellant cannot be considered as pre- deposit for hearing of the matter afresh by the original authority. We further find that there is no such bar under Section 35(C) of the Act that 2 C.E.A. No. 20 of 2009 while referring the case back to the original authority, the Tribunal cannot impose any condition. There is, thus, no merit in the appeal nor it involves any question of law. The matter has merely been remanded back. No question of law much less any substantial question of law warranting admission of the appeal arises for determination of this Court. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (H.S. BHALLA) March 25, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 3