2010 (9) TMI 1078 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against order of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal setting aside Order in Original passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai.

Issue a: Application of Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998 retrospectively.
The appeal challenged the Tribunal's decision regarding the application of the Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998 retrospectively. The case was based on suppression of facts and intention to evade Central Excise Duty, as discussed in the Order in Original dated 26.9.2000.

Issue b: Consideration of evidence collected under Panchanama and statements recorded under section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
The question arose whether the CESTAT could ignore the evidence collected under Panchanama and statements recorded under section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. This issue was crucial in determining the validity of the findings and decisions made in the case.

The factual background revealed that the assessees were involved in the manufacture of "processed manmade fabrics" and "cotton fabrics" falling under specific chapters of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The excise duty on these fabrics was to be discharged as per the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processor Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998, along with relevant provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and Notification No.42/98CE( N.T.) dated 10th December, 1998. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents due to discrepancies in their declaration, leading to the confirmation of duty demand and imposition of penalties by the Adjudicating Authority.

The respondents assessee appealed the adjudication order before the Tribunal, which was subsequently allowed based on specific reasons outlined in the Tribunal's order. This decision prompted the Revenue to challenge the Tribunal's order in the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court.

During the hearing, both parties acknowledged the judgment of the Madras High Court in a related case, which deemed Rule 3 of the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textiles Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules as ultra vires the provisions of Section 3A of the Act. As the Supreme Court had dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed against this judgment, the appeal in question was deemed unnecessary and lacking cause of action.

Consequently, based on the joint submissions made by the counsels, the High Court dismissed the appeal without addressing the framed questions, with no order as to costs.