2016 (10) TMI 955 - HC - Central Excise

Whether in the light of the subsequent instructions issued by the Ministry, anything would survive in this appeal? - Held that - the assessee had availed concessional rate of duty under Notification No.175/86. The assessee was not aware of the rates of excise duty taken in the tender and denied about awareness of preparation of tender papers on the basis of project report. The show cause notice itself alleges that the assessee has paid the central excise duty as per the manufacturing cost and that he has not compared the price with others. In the face of such an allegation in the show cause notice and when reliance is placed on a single piece of evidence, we do not think that in its further appellate jurisdiction this Court can enter into the domain of appreciation and appraisal of oral and documentary evidence. The documentary evidence having been appreciated and consistent with the case of the Revenue, there is no perversity in the order of the Tribunal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of excise duty collection from customers and applicability of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The High Court of Bombay heard an appeal by the Revenue to determine if the appeal should proceed in light of subsequent instructions from the Ministry. The Tribunal had found that the only case against the assessee was that they collected duty amount from their principals. The assessee argued that the contracted value included excise duty, and customers were not concerned about the duty rate paid. The Tribunal found that the evidence of duty collection from customers was lacking, and thus, there was no obligation to deposit or credit the fund with the duty amount. The High Court declined to interfere with this finding of fact, as it did not warrant further appellate jurisdiction.

The Court examined the show cause notice and annexures, noting the allegation that the assessee availed concessional duty rates under a specific notification. The notice claimed the assessee paid excise duty as per manufacturing cost without comparing prices with others. The Court held that based on the single piece of evidence and the consistent documentary evidence, there was no perversity in the Tribunal's order. The Court concluded that it could not delve into the appreciation and appraisal of evidence in its further appellate jurisdiction, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the Revenue.