2018 (3) TMI 1486 - HC - Central Excise

Appeal admitted for hearing on substantial questions of law - Also heard on interim relief - As an interim measure, we direct that until further orders, no coercive steps be taken against the appellant for recovery of the amount.

Summary

Issues:
1. Correct appreciation of facts and relevant provisions by Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
2. Legality of upholding Commissioner's order rejecting contentions without reason and violation of natural justice.
3. Willful suppression of facts with intent to evade duty and appellant's reliance on previous Tribunal decisions.

Issue 1:
The High Court considered the first substantial question of law regarding the correctness of the order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The court examined whether the Tribunal's decision was based on a proper understanding of the facts of the case and the relevant provisions of the proviso to Section 11A(1)/11A(4) of the Act. This issue focused on the Tribunal's interpretation and application of the law to the specific circumstances of the case.

Issue 2:
The second issue addressed by the High Court pertained to the legality of the Tribunal upholding the Commissioner's order without providing reasons and potentially violating principles of natural justice. The court analyzed whether the Tribunal was justified in supporting the Commissioner's decision, which rejected the appellant's contentions without a detailed explanation or a speaking order. This issue delved into procedural fairness and the requirement for authorities to provide reasoned decisions in compliance with principles of natural justice.

Issue 3:
The third significant question of law examined by the High Court involved determining whether there was willful suppression of facts by the appellant with the intent to evade duty. The court considered the circumstances under which the appellant operated, particularly in light of relying on previous Tribunal decisions that were later overturned by the Apex Court. The issue also explored whether the appellant's actions, based on the market value of excisable goods computed after deducting VAT and sales tax amounts permitted under the 2005 Scheme of the Assam Government, constituted willful evasion of duty. This issue required an assessment of the appellant's conduct and intent in light of changing legal interpretations and the known facts available to the department.

The High Court, represented by CJ Ajit Singh and Justice Manojit Bhuyan, admitted the appeal for hearing based on the substantial questions of law presented. The court also granted interim relief by directing that no coercive steps be taken against the appellant for recovery of the amount until further orders. The judgment reflects a detailed analysis of the legal issues raised, emphasizing the importance of correct interpretation of facts, procedural fairness, and the assessment of intent in cases involving duty evasion.