9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 1582 - HC - Central ExcisePrinciples of natural justice - cross-examinations of persons - Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act - HELD THAT - The Tribunal is the final Court of fact and an appeal against the order of the Tribunal would lie to this Court only on a substantial question of law. While a perverse finding would undoubtedly give rise to a substantial question of law, in the present case, that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the original adjudicating authority, and the CESTAT affirming the order of the adjudicating authority, do not suffer from any such infirmity. The order of the adjudicating authority is a reasoned and well considered order analysing the evidence adduced before him. The concurrent findings of fact by both the authorities, which do not suffer from perversity, do not necessitate interference in an appeal under Section 35-G of the Act. Application dismissed.
Issues:
1. Appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act against the order passed by CESTAT. 2. Dismissal of appeals by CESTAT confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. 3. Analysis of three main issues regarding the value of spares, operating equipment, and accessories in the assessable value of drilling rigs. Issue 1: Appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act against the order passed by CESTAT The judgment pertains to an appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act against the order passed by CESTAT in Appeal Nos. 31216-31217 dated 15.06.2017. The appeals, filed by both the revenue and the assessee, were dismissed by CESTAT, leading to the appeal before the High Court. Issue 2: Dismissal of appeals by CESTAT confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise The CESTAT confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, which dealt with three main issues related to the value of spares, operating equipment, and accessories in the assessable value of drilling rigs. The judgment highlighted that the Commissioner's order was detailed and addressed various aspects, including statements from manufacturers and customers, comparison with relevant case law, and the breakdown of contract values. Issue 3: Analysis of three main issues regarding the value of spares, operating equipment, and accessories in the assessable value of drilling rigs The judgment extensively analyzed the three main issues raised by the Commissioner regarding the assessable value of drilling rigs. It discussed the discrepancy between invoice prices and actual payments, the treatment of spares and accessories in the value calculation, and the need for concrete evidence to support any allegations of undervaluation or clandestine activities. The judgment emphasized the importance of corroborated evidence in establishing charges of undervaluation and clandestine activities, stating that suspicion alone cannot replace concrete proof. The judgment also highlighted the need for the Department to provide specific evidence regarding the cost of rigs manufactured for individual customers to substantiate any claims of undervaluation. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the concurrent findings of fact by the original adjudicating authority and CESTAT did not suffer from any infirmity or perversity. The judgment emphasized that a finding of fact can be considered perverse only if it lacks evidence or if no reasonable person would arrive at such a conclusion. As the order of the Commissioner was reasoned and well-considered, and the CESTAT affirmed it after analyzing the evidence, the High Court found no grounds for interference in the appeal under Section 35-G of the Act.
|
