2017 (8) TMI 1170 - HC - Central Excise

Clandestine manufacture and removal - According to the Department, unaccounted copper ingots and kachi parchis were found during search - Held that - The view taken by the CESTAT on an appreciation of the evidence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be improbable. Mr. Harpreet Singh was unable to persuade the Court to hold that there was any perversity vitiating the said findings - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against a common final order dated 28th December, 2016 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in appeals filed by Vimla Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Rohit Agarwal against the order-in-original dated 27th March, 2009 passed by the Commissioner Central Excise, New Delhi.

Analysis:

1. Background and Allegations:
Searches conducted in the premises of Vimla Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. and its director on 21st September, 2005, revealed unaccounted copper ingots and kachi parchis. A Show Cause Notice was issued on 31st July, 2007, leading to a demand confirmation of &8377; 4,34,73,449.87/- along with penalties and interest.

2. Appeals and Adjudication:
Both Respondents filed appeals before the CESTAT against the order-in-original, which were allowed by a common impugned order dated 26th December, 2016.

3. Evidence and Findings:
During the investigation, slips found in the seized records were relied upon to raise duty demands. The Department interpreted the contents of these slips to support the demands. However, statements made by individuals were retracted and found contradictory, leading the CESTAT to deem them unreliable.

4. Judicial Review and Decision:
The CESTAT's findings were considered reasonable based on the evidence presented. The Court dismissed the appeals, stating that no substantial question of law arose for determination from the impugned order. The applications were also dismissed accordingly.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the CESTAT's decision based on the evidence and lack of legal discrepancies, leading to the dismissal of the appeals and pending applications.