2017 (10) TMI 1051 - HC - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - reasonale care taken before availing credit - Held that - This finding of fact which was recorded in Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Vs. Juhi Alloys 2014 (1) TMI 1475 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT by this Court has been agreed by both the counsels that it will apply equally to the case of respondent also - it was held in that case that The goods were demonstrated to have travelled to the premises of the assessee under the cover of Form 31 issued by the Trade Tax Department, and the ledger account as well as the statutory records establish the receipt of the goods. In such a situation, it would be impractical to require the assessee to go behind the records maintained by the first stage dealer - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal under Section 35G of Central Excise Act arising from a judgment of the Tribunal based on a consented order. Application of a finding of fact from a previous judgment by the High Court regarding a bona fide purchaser and duty payment. Agreement between counsels on the applicability of the previous finding to the current case. Dismissal of the appeal due to lack of substantial question of law.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, arising from a decision of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The Tribunal's judgment was based on a consented and agreed order, which referred to a previous finding of fact by the High Court in a case involving a bona fide purchaser and duty payment. This previous finding established that the purchaser had received the goods, maintained statutory records, and had the necessary documentation, making it impractical to require the purchaser to verify records beyond those maintained by the first-stage dealer.

The counsels in the present case agreed that the finding of fact from the previous judgment applied equally to the current case. As a result, the appeal of the Assessee-respondent was allowed based on this agreement. The High Court emphasized that since both parties had consented to the application of the previous finding, there was no need for the appellant to file the appeal. The judgment highlighted that the impugned order did not raise any question of law, let alone a substantial one, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal as there was no substantial question of law raised by the impugned order. The judgment underscored the importance of parties' agreement on the application of a previous finding of fact by the High Court in similar cases, leading to the resolution of the present matter without the need for further legal proceedings.