9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 685 - HC - Central ExciseConfiscation of goods - Imposition of redemption fine - Whether on the facts and in the circumstances the CESTAT has passed its order in total disregard to material facts and evidence on record and in complete arbitrary manner - Held that - Assessee state that it would be in the interest of justice if the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside in its entirety and the proceedings are restored back to the file of the Tribunal for consideration afresh. - Impugned order is set aside - matter remanded back - Appeal disposed of.
Issues:
Appeal against decision of CESTAT - Allegation of passing order disregarding material facts and evidence - Confiscation of goods with redemption fine - Request for setting aside the Tribunal's order and restoring proceedings. Analysis: The High Court addressed the appeal arising from a decision of the CESTAT, where the Revenue questioned if the CESTAT had passed its order disregarding material facts and evidence in an arbitrary manner. The adjudicating authority had confirmed the duty demand and directed the confiscation of goods with an option for redemption fine. The Tribunal's order highlighted the appellants' contention regarding the impracticality of weighing a large quantity of material in a short time, discrepancies in weight records, and previous allegations of shortages by the Revenue. The Tribunal found no inventories or evidence of proper weighing procedures, leading to the conclusion that there was no justification for confiscation of goods or penalty imposition. During the appeal hearing, both the Revenue's counsel and the Assessee's counsel agreed that it would be in the interest of justice to set aside the Tribunal's order entirely and restore the proceedings for fresh consideration. Consequently, the High Court, with the consent of both parties, set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the case back to the Tribunal for a fresh review. The Court clarified that the rights and contentions of the parties remained open, refraining from expressing any view on the framed question of law. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
|
