2015 (8) TMI 193 - SC - Central Excise

Clandestine removal of goods - Misdeclaration of goods - Shortage of goods - Supreme Court after going through the order of CESTAT found no reason to interfere with the impugned order 2002 (10) TMI 191 - CEGAT, MUMBAI ; wherein Tribunal held that polyester waste was subjected to weighment and for moisture content checking. After this, waste was also subject to heat setting to set the undrawn content in the waste. The entire process has been described by the deponent regarding the waste. When this piece of evidence is there, the department has not produced any evidence to contradict the same. When direct evidence is emerging in this case, the department has failed miserably to prove that what is sold was only staple fibre.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves a review of an order by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, focusing on whether the matters at hand involve questions of fact or law.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court examined the impugned order of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal and concluded that the case primarily revolves around factual matters without any significant legal issues. The Court specifically referenced paragraph 20 of the impugned order, which highlighted the evidence presented regarding the processing of polyester waste. The statement of Yogesh Mehra was crucial, indicating the process the waste underwent, including weighment, moisture content checking, and heat setting. The Court noted that the department failed to provide contradictory evidence, leading to a conclusion that what was sold was not solely staple fiber but included other components. This lack of evidence undermined the department's case, resulting in the dismissal of the appeals as they lacked merit.

Conclusion:
Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, emphasizing the absence of legal issues and the reliance on factual evidence in the case. The judgment highlights the importance of substantiating claims with evidence and the impact of failing to counter opposing evidence effectively.