9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 521 - HC - Central ExciseExtended period of limitation - jurisdiction of the authorities - question of fact or question of law - Appellant would submit that if the point of limitation involves jurisdiction of the authorities, then, the findings, though mixed in character, raise a substantial question of law - Held that - It is unfortunate that this technical defence has resulted in repeated remands and the Revenue and its officers being engaged endlessly by the Tribunal and their superiors in considering the issue. In the given facts and circumstances, the Tribunal would have been well advised to decide the issue itself and in the first instance. In the circumstances, we do not think that the Assessee can derive any benefit by mere filing of the classification lists or any endorsement thereon. Here the issue was whether the audit party was given an opportunity to inspect the materials and which came to be claimed as evidence of dutiable inputs. It is the Assessee who had relied upon such specific audit inspection. The matter had to be therefore decided in the light of the audit party inspection and the finding in the report thereof. Such being the nature of the controversy, no assistance can be derived from the authorities and rulings even if they are rendered by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of O. K. Play India Ltd. 2005 (2) TMI 114 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and other Judgments. The attempt of the Assessee is nothing but to seek a reappreciation and reappraisal of a factual finding with an intention to delay meeting the demand. The attempt of this nature does not result in the Appeal being entertained by this Court. That is because it raises no substantial question of law. - Decided against the assessee.
Issues:
1. Appeal against order passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. 2. Question of substantial law on the point of extended period of limitation. 3. Allegation of manufacturing goods out of non-duty paid scrap. 4. Multiple remands and findings regarding limitation. 5. Interpretation of audit findings and reliance on classification lists. 6. Benefit of Notification and duty exemption. 7. Dismissal of the Appeal by the High Court. Analysis: 1. The appeal before the High Court challenged the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, arising from a decision by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise. The Assessee, engaged in manufacturing iron and steel products, contested the findings related to the extended period of limitation. 2. The Appellant argued that the Tribunal's findings on limitation raised a substantial question of law, citing the case of ITW Signode India Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise. The Appellant emphasized that the jurisdiction of authorities is impacted by the question of limitation, especially concerning the suppression of material facts to evade duty payment. 3. The dispute revolved around the Appellant's alleged use of non-duty paid scrap in manufacturing goods cleared at a Nil rate of duty. Despite the Appellant's reliance on classification lists duly endorsed by the proper officer, the authorities contended that the Appellant misrepresented the nature of inputs used. 4. The case involved multiple rounds of adjudication, remands, and findings on the issue of limitation. The High Court noted discrepancies in the audit process, emphasizing the lack of conclusive evidence to support the Appellant's claims regarding the duty status of inputs used in manufacturing. 5. The High Court highlighted that the Appellant's repeated attempts to challenge factual findings were aimed at delaying the resolution of the demand raised by the Revenue. The Court concluded that the Appellant's arguments did not raise any substantial question of law warranting the Appeal to be entertained, leading to its dismissal. 6. Ultimately, the High Court determined that the Appellant's reliance on classification lists and previous judgments did not alter the core issue of factual assessment regarding the duty status of inputs used in manufacturing. The Court emphasized the need to address the substantive concerns rather than seeking repeated reconsideration based on technical defenses.
|
