2010 (2) TMI 972 - HC - Central Excise

Bogus transactions - the appellant has received no inputs and there was only paper transaction between the appellant and the supplier Held that - The first question of law (sic) ground is with regard to grant of unconditional stay in favour of the appellant by interim order. Question No. 2 (sic) ground is vague as it does not disclose asto whether these facts were brought into the notice before the adjudicating authority or the Commissioner, Appeals. Question No. 3 (sic) ground is purely a question of fact. Question No. 4 (sic) ground is vague as no documentary evidence produced has been detailed. Questions No. 5 to 14 (sic) grounds are pure question of facts and it does not raise any substantial question of law warranting admission under the provisions of Section 35G of the Act, 1944 which is a pre requisite condition before admitting the appeal. Thus the appellant has not raised any question of law much less the substantial questions of law warranting admission under the provisions of Section 35G of the Act, 1944.Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal in granting unconditional stay.
2. Consideration of documentary evidence by the Appellate Tribunal.
3. Legality of imposing Mandatory Penalty under Rule 57-I(4) read with Section 11AC.
4. Evaluation of evidence regarding receipt and use of inputs.
5. Consistency in the Tribunal's decision-making process.
6. Investigation findings on the receipt of inputs.
7. Track record of receipt, issue, and payment for inputs.
8. Manufacturing process and assessment of supplier returns.
9. Discrepancies in penalty imposition and duty payment.
10. Undisputed facts regarding payment and usage of inputs.
11. Precedent cases and their relevance.
12. Detailed track record of inputs and manufacturing.
13. Assessment of supplier returns and receipt of inputs.
14. Denial of Modvat credit based on supplier's lapses.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal in granting unconditional stay:
The appellant argued that the Tribunal granted an unconditional stay based on documentary evidence supporting the receipt and use of materials. However, this was not considered in the final order. The court found this question to be a ground rather than a substantial question of law.

2. Consideration of documentary evidence by the Appellate Tribunal:
The appellant claimed that the Tribunal ignored additional grounds of appeal and documentary evidence demonstrating the receipt and use of materials. The court noted that these facts were not clearly presented before the adjudicating authority or the Commissioner (Appeals), rendering this ground vague and insufficient to constitute a substantial question of law.

3. Legality of imposing Mandatory Penalty under Rule 57-I(4) read with Section 11AC:
The appellant contested the imposition of a mandatory penalty for a period prior to its enactment. The court found this to be a factual issue rather than a substantial question of law, as it did not involve a legal principle that required interpretation.

4. Evaluation of evidence regarding receipt and use of inputs:
The appellant argued that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence showing the receipt and use of inputs in manufacturing excisable goods. The court held that this was a factual matter, not raising any substantial question of law.

5. Consistency in the Tribunal's decision-making process:
The appellant pointed out inconsistencies in the Tribunal's interim and final decisions. The court found that the Tribunal had relied on the investigation records and not on the appellant's documents, which did not constitute a substantial question of law.

6. Investigation findings on the receipt of inputs:
The Tribunal upheld the findings that the appellant did not receive the inputs, based on investigations showing that the supplier's unit was closed during the relevant period. The court agreed, noting no infirmity in the Tribunal's reliance on these findings.

7. Track record of receipt, issue, and payment for inputs:
The appellant provided a detailed track record showing receipt, issue, and payment for inputs. The court found that these were factual issues, not raising any substantial question of law.

8. Manufacturing process and assessment of supplier returns:
The appellant questioned how they could manufacture excisable goods without receiving inputs and why the supplier's returns were not objected to by the Revenue. The court held that these were factual matters, not involving substantial questions of law.

9. Discrepancies in penalty imposition and duty payment:
The appellant highlighted discrepancies in penalty imposition and duty payment between them and the suppliers. The court found that the Tribunal's decision was based on factual findings, not raising any substantial question of law.

10. Undisputed facts regarding payment and usage of inputs:
The appellant argued that payments were made by cheque and inputs were used in manufacturing, which the department did not dispute. The court held that these were factual issues, not involving substantial questions of law.

11. Precedent cases and their relevance:
The appellant cited the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Neepaz Steels (India) to argue against the penalty. The court did not find this citation sufficient to raise a substantial question of law.

12. Detailed track record of inputs and manufacturing:
The appellant provided a detailed track record of inputs and manufacturing. The court found that these were factual issues, not raising any substantial question of law.

13. Assessment of supplier returns and receipt of inputs:
The appellant questioned the assessment of supplier returns and the receipt of inputs. The court held that these were factual matters, not involving substantial questions of law.

14. Denial of Modvat credit based on supplier's lapses:
The appellant argued that Modvat credit should not be denied for lapses at the supplier's end. The court found that this issue did not raise a substantial question of law, as it was based on factual findings.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal for want of substantial questions of law, emphasizing that the appellant's grounds were primarily factual and did not involve legal principles requiring interpretation under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

← Previous Next →