2014 (7) TMI 831 - HC - Central Excise

Revenue appeal against the decision of tribunal - Respondents have filed the affidavitcumundertaking dated 30.06.2014 stating therein that they shall not claim the refund of duty which was paid by the Respondent at the factory at Bangalore and Kurkumbh (supplier factories) in respect of the goods cleared to their factories at (i) Kurkumbh, Pune, (ii) Vikhroli, Mumbai, (iii) Patalganga, Raigad, (iv) Verna, Goa and (v) Bangalore in the State of Karnataka (recipient factories). It is submitted that the Respondent/recipient factories have taken the credit of duty paid by the said two factories at Bangalore and Kurkumbh. Once we find that there is additional protection of interest of the Revenue by the undertakings and which we have accepted, then, all the more this is not a fit case for entertaining the Appeals. - no substantial question law - revenue appeal dismissed.

Issues:
1. Registration and numbering of two Appeals
2. Removal of office objections
3. Manufacturers/suppliers not claiming refund
4. Affidavit cum undertaking filed by Respondents
5. Disposition of Appeals without substantial question of law

Analysis:

1. The High Court dealt with the issue of registration and numbering of two Central Excise Appeals that were pending due to office objections raised by the Registry. The Court noted that some objections could have been waived and directed the Appeals to be registered and numbered after the Revenue assured that any remaining objections would be duly removed. Both sides agreed to have the Appeals taken up and disposed of on the same day alongside other Appeals with similar points involved.

2. The Court heard arguments from both parties, including the Revenue and the Assessee, on the matter of the Appeals. It was observed that keeping the Appeals pending would serve no purpose as the Tribunal had found that none of the manufacturers or suppliers had claimed a refund of duty or reversal of credit. Given the common identity of the manufacturers/suppliers with the Assessee, the Court decided to dispose of the Appeals based on this finding of fact.

3. The Court considered the submission made by the Revenue that the Tribunal had already adjudicated the matter on merits, indicating that the Appeals should not be disposed of solely based on the manufacturers/suppliers not claiming a refund. As a result, the Court requested an affidavit cum undertaking from the Respondents/suppliers to ensure they would not claim any refund of duty paid by them. The Respondents filed the affidavit, stating their undertaking not to claim any refund, which was accepted by the Court for identification.

4. Based on the clear findings of fact and the undertakings provided, the Court disposed of the Appeals, concluding that they did not raise any substantial question of law. The Court clarified that its decision was specific to the Assessee's case and would not bind the Revenue in other cases. If the Tribunal applied the same reasoning in another case, the Revenue would be free to challenge it. All contentions from both sides on this matter were kept open, and the Appeals were ultimately disposed of without any costs.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the procedural aspects, legal considerations, and the reasoning behind the Court's decision on each issue involved in the case.

← Previous Next →