2008 (6) TMI 172 - HC - Central Excise

Admissibility of petition against CESTAT orders - It is admitted that the CEGAT is not a Tribunal constituted under the Articles 323A and 323B of the Constitution therefore, preliminary objection to maintainability of petition is not sustainable petition is admissible against CESTAT order further it is held that Court can set aside the finding of facts even in a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution where CEGAT relied on irrelevant considerations in its finding

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to orders passed by Customs, Excise, Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal; Clubbing of clearance of three units for excise duty; Reopening of appeals based on subsequent developments; Allegations of units being dummies of petitioner; Legal principles governing clubbing of units for excise duty; Maintainability of writ petition against CEGAT order; Factual findings and errors in CEGAT's decision.

Comprehensive Analysis:

The judgment by the Madras High Court dealt with challenges to orders passed by the Customs, Excise, Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) regarding the clubbing of clearance of three units for excise duty. The petitioner company, along with two other companies, faced allegations of being dummies of the petitioner, leading to a demand for excise duty, redemption fine, and penalty. The CEGAT confirmed the order, treating all units as one entity for excise duty purposes.

The petitioner sought to reopen appeals based on subsequent developments, highlighting that the units were willing to abide by a previous order. The Senior Counsel argued that the criteria used for clubbing the units were not foolproof and cited legal precedents, including a Supreme Court judgment in Arca Controls Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, to support their case against clubbing the units.

The judgment also discussed legal principles governing the clubbing of units for excise duty, emphasizing factors like mutual financial assistance, common facilities, and common staff as criteria for determining whether units should be treated as a single entity for excise duty purposes. Moreover, the judgment referenced directions issued under Section 37-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, regarding the treatment of different entities for exemption limits.

Regarding the maintainability of the writ petition against the CEGAT order, the Court held that parties could approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution despite objections raised by the Assistant ASG. The Court further noted that factual findings must consider relevant factors, and any errors in such findings could be challenged in a writ petition under Article 226.

Ultimately, the High Court set aside the CEGAT's order, emphasizing that the Tribunal had not considered relevant legal principles and directions under the Central Excise Act. The judgment allowed the writ petitions, stating that each unit had crossed the exemption threshold and should not be levied excise duty, thereby granting relief to the petitioner and the other companies involved in the case.