2011 (4) TMI 1284 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Central Excise duty on secondary packaging, rejection of refund claim, challenge before appellate authorities, questions of law before the High Court.

Central Excise duty on secondary packaging: The assessee-respondent, engaged in manufacturing sheet glass, faced a show cause notice for not including the cost of secondary packaging in the assessable value, leading to alleged short payment of Central Excise duty. The assessee started paying duty on secondary packing material under protest and later filed a refund claim, which was rejected by the assessing officer citing false claims for special packing for distant customers.

Rejection of refund claim: The assessee challenged the rejection before the Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the order rejecting the objection of the department based on the finality of a previous CESTAT order. The revenue further appealed to the CESTAT, which upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).

Questions of law before the High Court: The High Court considered three main questions of law raised by the revenue challenging the CESTAT order. These questions pertained to the consideration of new facts, adherence to Supreme Court decisions, and the impact of previous Tribunal decisions accepted by the department.

High Court Judgment: After hearing arguments, the High Court found no valid cause to interfere with the CESTAT order. The Court noted that the issue had attained finality based on the chronological events and previous adjudication orders. The Tribunal's decision was upheld as it correctly applied the law and considered the finality of previous decisions regarding the inclusion of the cost of secondary packing in the assessable value.

Conclusion: The High Court rejected the revenue's appeal, stating that the Tribunal's observations were based on detailed chronological facts and matters that had already achieved finality could not be reopened. The Court found no infirmity in the reasoning provided by the Tribunal and concluded that no question of law remained, thus dismissing the appeal.