2005 (7) TMI 28 - HC - Central Excise

Tribunal on basis of certificate of C.A. balance sheet auditors report etc find that incidence of duty hasn t been passed No question of law arise No reason to interfere the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both Comm.(A) & Tribunal Revenue s appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal; Burden of proof under Section 12B of Central Excise Act.

Analysis:
The appeal before the High Court challenged an order made by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench At Mumbai. The appellant argued that the Tribunal merely reiterated the Commissioner (Appeals) findings without providing independent reasons. The main contention was whether the assessee had discharged the burden under Section 12B of the Central Excise Act regarding the recovery of excise duty from customers. The Tribunal confirmed the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) after evaluating the evidence on record. Both authorities found that the assessee had rebutted the presumption under Section 12B through various pieces of evidence, such as certificates from Chartered Accountants, balance-sheets, letters, and affidavits. The appellate authorities concluded that the evidence presented by the assessee was more acceptable, and the burden of proof had been discharged satisfactorily.

The High Court noted that the appellant failed to establish any ground for challenging the Tribunal's order. It was emphasized that the sufficiency of evidence cannot be a basis for interfering with factual findings if the conclusion drawn is reasonable and not perverse. In this case, the evidence presented by the assessee was deemed sufficient to discharge the burden under Section 12B. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no question of law, let alone a substantial one, arose for consideration based on the Tribunal's order.

Additionally, a civil application related to the main appeal was also dismissed as the main appeal was rejected. The civil application was deemed infructuous and disposed of accordingly.

This judgment highlights the importance of evidence in discharging the burden of proof under the Central Excise Act. It underscores the significance of presenting credible evidence to rebut any presumptions and emphasizes that factual findings based on reasonable evidence should not be interfered with lightly.