2019 (4) TMI 1079 - HC - Central Excise

Valuation - goods covered under Pan Masala Packing Machine (Capacity Determination Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 - cross examination of witnesses - scope of quasi-judicial proceedings - HELD THAT - Ultimately the Tribunal itself has come to the conclusion and recorded findings of fact that no attempt had been made by the assessee to remove any goods in clandestine manner and all the goods were found available in the factory premises. Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the order of confiscation, duty and penalty against the appellant was unsustainable and, therefore, set aside the impugned order - Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of Central Excise Act and Rules on goods covered under specific rules
2. Cross-examination of witnesses in quasi-judicial proceedings

Analysis:
1. The case involved a department's appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against an order of the Tribunal. The questions of law sought to be answered included the applicability of Central Excise Act 1944 and Central Excise Rules 2002 on goods covered under specific rules related to Pan Masala Packing Machine. The High Court noted that the Tribunal had found that no attempt was made to remove goods clandestinely, and all goods were available in the factory premises. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the order of confiscation, duty, and penalty against the appellant was unsustainable, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order. The High Court, based on the Tribunal's findings of fact, declined to interfere in the matter as no substantial questions of law were raised. Therefore, the questions of law were answered in favor of the assessee and against the department, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.

2. Another issue raised in the case was whether cross-examination of witnesses is an integral part of quasi-judicial proceedings. While this question was not specifically addressed in the detailed judgment, it can be inferred that the High Court's decision to dismiss the appeal based on the Tribunal's findings indicates that the absence of any attempt to remove goods clandestinely played a crucial role in the final decision. The judgment did not delve into the specifics of cross-examination but focused on the factual findings and the unsustainable nature of the order against the appellant.