2017 (8) TMI 1400 - HC - Central Excise

Whether the demands based on triplicate copies of invoices were sustainable or not; and whether the Revenue had disclosed the source of the invoices relied on by it were matters in dispute? - Held that - The questions sought to be raised are primarily questions of facts and do not generate any substantial question of law for interference in favor of the Revenue through an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against a common order passed by CESTAT on penalty imposed on a Company and its Directors.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal by the Revenue against a penalty order imposed on a Company and its Directors, challenging a common order passed by CESTAT. The Court noted that although the Revenue did not appeal against the decision of CESTAT regarding the Directors due to monetary limits, the substance of the claim and penalty imposition were common for both the Company and its Directors. The issues in dispute included the sustainability of demands based on triplicate copies of invoices and the disclosure of the source of invoices by the Revenue. The Tribunal's findings in favor of both the Company and the Directors would bind the Revenue, invoking the principle of res judicata in appeals. The Court further emphasized that the questions raised primarily involved facts and did not give rise to substantial questions of law for the Revenue to appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act.

Therefore, the Court concluded that the appeal by the Revenue failed on the grounds that the questions raised were factual and did not warrant interference based on substantial questions of law under Section 35G. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the CESTAT.