2018 (6) TMI 995 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - Question of Fact involved - Benefit of N/N. 40/1995, dated 16.03.1995 - Held that - When it is the clear and categorical finding of those authorities that the Deputy Chief Chemist has not tested the samples and that he has given his opinion only based on the letter addressed by the Revenue, such factual findings rendered by those authorities which culminated in rejecting the case of the Revenue, do not warrant interference by this Court, more particularly, no question of law is involved in this case, for our consideration. When the applicability of the subject-matter exemption notification to the case of the respondent/assessee has been considered and found in favour of the respondent/assessee by two fact finding authorities, this Court is not inclined to interfere with such factual finding rendered by both the authorities below, as the case as projected by the revenue does not involve any question of law to be decided by this Court. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Notification No. 40/95 CE dated 16.03.1995 regarding duty exemption for Cotton Fabrics subjected to scouring process.

Analysis:
The respondent, engaged in manufacturing Cotton Fabrics subjected to scouring, claimed duty exemption under Notification No. 40/95 CE. The Revenue contended that the process undertaken was not specified in the notification, leading to a demand of duty. The Commissioner(Appeals) allowed the appeal, highlighting that the Deputy Chief Chemist's opinion lacked proper testing and relied on Tribunal's precedent. The Commissioner(Appeals) also noted the absence of the Bleaching Process in question.

Challenging the Commissioner(Appeals) decision, the Revenue appealed to the Tribunal(CESTAT), which upheld the previous findings. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed before the High Court, questioning the Tribunal's ruling on the eligibility for duty exemption under the notification. The appellant argued that the respondent failed to qualify for the exemption due to unspecified processes and the Deputy Chief Chemist's report indicating bleaching.

The High Court emphasized that the case primarily revolved around factual aspects evaluated by the lower authorities. Noting that the Deputy Chief Chemist did not conduct proper testing and based his opinion on a letter, the Court found no legal questions requiring its intervention. The Court reiterated that the applicability of an exemption notification hinges on factual considerations, especially when the notification's existence is undisputed. As both lower authorities favored the respondent, the Court declined to interfere with their factual findings, as the revenue's case lacked legal issues for the Court's deliberation.

Consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, ruling in favor of the respondent, with no costs incurred.