2022 (8) TMI 61 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - monetary amount involved in the appeal - shortage of excisable goods has been beyond the maximum condonable limit of 2% - suppression of material facts - Section 11A of the Central Excise Act - HELD THAT - It is found that the Central Excise Duty demanded from the respondent is Rs.55,06,320.00. If that be the case, the revenue cannot pursue the appeal on the ground of low tax effect. For such reason, the appeal stands disposed of on the ground of low tax effect. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal.
2. Substantial questions of law raised by the revenue.

Delay in filing the appeal:
The judgment addresses a delay of 1082 days in filing the appeal. The Court notes that while not fully satisfied with the reasons provided in the affidavit supporting the condonation of delay petition, the tax effect in the appeal is below the threshold limit. Despite this, the Court exercises discretion and condones the delay in filing the appeal, allowing the application for condonation of delay.

Substantial questions of law raised by the revenue:
The appeal by the revenue, filed under Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, challenges the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The revenue raises three substantial questions of law for consideration. Firstly, regarding the shortage of excisable goods beyond the condonable limit of 2%, not recorded in the excise records or informed to authorities. Secondly, questioning the failure of the assessee to issue invoices for the goods, reflect shortages in monthly returns, or inform the range officer, potentially evading payment of Central excise duty. Lastly, disputing the Tribunal's failure to appreciate that the case of duty evasion warrants equal penalty and interest under relevant provisions of the Central Excise Rules.

Upon reviewing the material papers, particularly the original order demanding Central Excise Duty of Rs.55,06,320.00 from the respondent, the Court finds that the revenue cannot pursue the appeal due to the low tax effect. Consequently, the appeal is disposed of on the grounds of low tax effect, leaving the substantial questions of law open for future consideration.