2011 (8) TMI 1005 - HC - Central Excise

Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the earlier OIA No. 414/2002 dated 4-7-2002 was in respect of the same claim as the present claim instead of there being a clear distinction between the two claims which have also been dealt with the OIO? Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the extended period of limitation was not applicable to the facts of the present case as there is no suppression of facts in spite of being pointed out that in the continuous correspondence the unit has deliberately suppressed the facts? Held that - It is well settled that the Tribunal is the final authority on the question of fact and even otherwise on perusal of the facts and the order in OIA No. 414/2002-C.E. dated 4-7-2002 we find that the process involved and input were the same. Therefore the order passed by the Tribunal is justified and accordingly we answer the first substantial question of law against the Revenue. Since we have considered the appeal on merits it is unnecessary to consider the second substantial question of law. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Modvat credit availed by the respondent.
2. Applicability of the extended period of limitation.
3. Justification of the order passed by the Tribunal based on previous judgments.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of Modvat credit availed by the respondent
The respondent, a sugar and molasses manufacturer, availed Modvat credit on inputs for manufacturing final excisable products. The dispute arose when it was found that the declared final products were not manufactured during the claimed period, leading to the disallowance of Modvat credit by the Adjudicating Authority. The respondent contended that Modvat credit was correctly availed based on previous orders, including OIA No. 414/2002. The Tribunal upheld the appeal, emphasizing that the process and input were identical to the previous case, where Modvat credit was allowed. The High Court agreed, stating that the Tribunal's decision was justified as the facts and process were the same, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Issue 2: Applicability of the extended period of limitation
The Revenue argued that the extended period of limitation should apply due to the alleged suppression of facts by the respondent. However, the Tribunal and the High Court found no justification for the extended period, as the process and input were consistent with the previous case where Modvat credit was allowed. Therefore, the extended period of limitation was not applicable in this scenario.

Issue 3: Justification of the order based on previous judgments
The High Court scrutinized the material on record, including the previous order in OIA No. 414/2002, and concluded that the process and input in both cases were the same. Since the Revenue had accepted the previous order, it could not contest the respondent's entitlement to Modvat credit in the present case. The Tribunal's decision to uphold the appeal based on the previous judgment was deemed justified by the High Court, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the consistency in facts and processes between the present case and the previous judgment. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the respondent's entitlement to Modvat credit based on the established precedents.