2015 (1) TMI 753 - HC - Central Excise

EXIM - Import of Second-hand used Dornier Repair Looms with accessories - Held that - There is no allegation that the aforesaid fact finding is not correct. To give a chance, on 19-2-2014, we adjourned the matter to enable the Revenue to produce the Chartered Engineer s Certificate as referred to in the original order. The Chartered Engineer s Certificate was not produced and the material which is now produced by the Revenue has no correlation with the matter. Report No. SGS/VSP/2795, dated 15-3-2012 of SGS India (P) Ltd., has been produced before us, whereas in the order of learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal relied on the reports dated 8-2-2002 and 12-2-2002 of SGS India Pvt. Ltd. - No illegality or infirmity in the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Appeal against Tribunal's judgment and order
- Interpretation of fact finding and legal provisions
- Production of Chartered Engineer's Certificate
- Dismissal of miscellaneous petitions
- Dismissal of Reference Cases

Appeal against Tribunal's judgment and order:
The judgment pertains to an appeal, C.E.A. No. 11 of 2012, filed against a Tribunal's judgment and order from 17-8-2005. The appeal was not admitted as no substantial question of law could be formulated. The Tribunal's fact-finding and application of legal provisions were found to be correct, referencing a connected appeal from Kolkata Bench. The Tribunal's reliance on reports from SGS India Pvt. Ltd. was discussed, highlighting discrepancies in the conclusion drawn by the Commissioner regarding the age of machinery. The Court found no illegality or infirmity in the Tribunal's judgment, and no new evidence produced by the Revenue altered this conclusion, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Interpretation of fact finding and legal provisions:
The Court emphasized the importance of correct fact-finding by the Tribunal in the case. The judgment highlighted that the Tribunal's decision was based on factual evidence and legal provisions. The absence of any allegation challenging the correctness of the fact-finding supported the Tribunal's decision. Additionally, the Court adjourned the matter to allow the Revenue to produce the Chartered Engineer's Certificate as mentioned in the original order. However, as the certificate was not provided, and the new material presented had no relevance to the case, the appeal was dismissed.

Production of Chartered Engineer's Certificate:
The Court noted that the Chartered Engineer's Certificate, crucial to the case, was not produced by the Revenue despite a chance given for its submission. The material eventually presented did not align with the matter at hand, as it differed from the reports relied upon by the Tribunal in its original order. This failure to produce the required certificate contributed to the dismissal of the appeal.

Dismissal of miscellaneous petitions:
Following the dismissal of the appeal, the Court ordered the dismissal of any pending miscellaneous petitions related to the case. This decision was a consequential outcome of the primary appeal being rejected based on the Tribunal's correct fact-finding and legal application.

Dismissal of Reference Cases:
In light of the dismissal of the connected appeal, C.E.A. No. 11 of 2012, the Court determined that no opinion was necessary in the Reference Cases, C.E.R.C. Nos. 2 of 2004 and 4 of 2004. Consequently, the Reference Cases were also dismissed without any costs imposed. This decision was a direct result of the primary appeal being rejected, indicating a consistent approach in the disposition of related cases.