2015 (9) TMI 348 - HC - Central Excise

Duty demand - Tribunal reduced demand and penalty - Held that - Specific finding of fact has been recorded relying upon the documentary evidence as well as on the admission of Sri Narendra Randhwa, Manager Export and Import of the company to the effect that the goods had been removed from the factory on the pretext of demonstration and repair purpose but had been ultimately disposed off in the DTA. The Tribunal has further recorded that although the counsel for assessee submitted that the goods cleared in DTA were manufactured from the indebtedness material but such statement could not be substantiated - finding recorded by the Tribunal could not be successfully assailed the only plea raised is that the notice had been sent at the address of the manufacturing unit which had been vacated by the assessee prior to the date of issuance of notice. order of the Tribunal proceeds on admission of the Manager, Export and Import and further the finding of service of notice being a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be gone into by this Court after reappraisal of evidence as is suggested by the appellant. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against the order of Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, reduction of penalty, service of notice, findings of fact, questions of law.

Reduction of Penalty Issue:
The writ petition challenged the order of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which partly allowed the appeal by reducing the penalty on the company under the Central Excise Act and the Customs Act. The penalty on the Manager (Export and Import) was written off. The Tribunal's decision was based on specific findings regarding the removal and disposal of goods from the factory, which the appellant failed to successfully challenge. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's order on the reduction of penalties.

Service of Notice Issue:
The appellant argued that the notice was sent to the vacated manufacturing unit, and they had informed the authorities about the change in address. However, the Tribunal had recorded a specific finding of fact based on documentary evidence and the admission of the Manager (Export and Import) that goods were removed from the factory and disposed of in the DTA. The High Court held that the Tribunal's finding on the service of notice was a factual determination that could not be re-evaluated by the Court. The appeal on this issue was dismissed.

Findings of Fact Issue:
The Tribunal's decision was supported by specific findings of fact, including the removal and disposal of goods from the factory, which were not successfully challenged by the appellant. The High Court noted that the Tribunal's findings were based on documentary evidence and the admission of the company's Manager (Export and Import). The Court held that it could not reassess these factual findings, and therefore, the appeal on this issue was dismissed.

Questions of Law Issue:
The appellant raised several questions of law regarding the Tribunal's decision, including the service of notice, receipt of intimation, and the denial of an opportunity for a hearing. However, the High Court found that the Tribunal's order was based on factual findings and admissions made by the company's Manager (Export and Import). The Court held that the questions of law raised in the appeal were answered against the appellant, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal against the order of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, upholding the reduction of penalties and the findings of fact based on documentary evidence and the admission of the company's Manager (Export and Import). The Court emphasized that factual determinations made by the Tribunal could not be re-evaluated by the Court, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on various legal issues raised by the appellant.