9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 192 - HC - Central ExciseArea Based Exemption - conclusion as reached is perverse for non-consideration of the evidence or not - CESTAT has taken into consideration the materials available on record or not - power of the High Court, to interfere with an order passed by an Appellate Tribunal - section 35G of Act, 1944. HELD THAT - It is well settled that the power of the High Court under section 35G of Act, 1944 to interfere with an order passed by an Appellate Tribunal is very limited and the same can be done, only when the Court is satisfied that the case involves substantial questions of law - Finding of facts reached by an Appellate Tribunal cannot be interfered or reversed in an appeal under section 35G of the Act 1944 without coming to a conclusion that the said finding of fact is either perverse or not based on materials on record. The word Perverse in the legal parlance is defined to mean against the weight of evidence . It is equally well settled that even when from the evidence two inferences are possible, then the one drawn by the Tribunal below should be opted. Such finding of facts and decision can only be interfered in an appeal under section 35G of the Act 1944, when such decision is based on inadmissible evidence or arrived at without evidence or recorded based on misreading of materials on record and documents. In the case in hand, from the show cause notice as well as from the order of the Commissioner dated 29.07.2008, it is clear that the order of exemption granted to the respondent on 10.12.2002 is not disputed - the conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal in discarding the Investigation report on ground that the investigation was done in the year 2005 and not immediately after the exemption was granted, cannot be faulted with. Therefore, the course of action adopted by the appellate authority in placing reliance on the recorded facts in the order dated 10.12.2002 granting exemption cannot be said to be perverse. The allegations levelled in the show cause notice dated 29.10.2007 and confirmed in Commissioners order dated 30.11.2007 are based on the foundation that no purchase of plants and machinery was made as claimed by the assessee and such allegations has been established through the statement of the vendors from whom the machineries were purchased and also from the statement of the alleged transporters. However, these statements were recorded in the year 2005 whereas the exemption order was issued on 10.12.2002 and further such statements are also not supported by any tangible material including documents which would show the transactions done by the vendors during the aforesaid period of supply - The fact also remains that there is no whisper by the authority/department that the findings recorded by the competent authority in order dated 10.12.2002, while granting exemption are incorrect or that no verification was made by the authority before granting such exemption. That being the position, the conclusion of the learned Appellate Tribunal as discussed and summarised, cannot be said to be perverse. The substantial questions of law formulated are answered against the appellant and in favour of the assessee - Appeal dismissed.
Issues involved:
The judgment involves determining the legality of an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) regarding the misuse of excise duty exemption by the respondent. Facts: A show cause notice was issued to the respondent, alleging misuse of exemption notification and wrongful refund of excise duty. The Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed the demand of duty, holding the respondent ineligible for the exemption. The respondent appealed to the CESTAT, which set aside the Commissioner's order. Findings of the Commissioner of Excise: The Commissioner found that the unit's status changed illegally, and the benefit of exemption was availed through false declarations and forged documents. Findings of the Appellate Tribunal: The Appellate Tribunal overturned the Commissioner's order, stating that the exemption was granted after due verification and that the investigation was based on statements without supporting documents. Arguments advanced for the Appellants: The Appellants argued that the Tribunal's decision was perverse as it ignored material facts and misled authorities about the production commencement. Arguments advanced for the Respondent: The Respondent contended that the Tribunal's findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence and should not be disturbed. They cited legal precedents to support their stance. Determination of the Court: The Court noted the limited scope of interference with Tribunal orders under the Act and emphasized that findings should only be overturned if they are perverse or unsupported by evidence. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the exemption was granted after due verification and the investigation was not immediate. Conclusion: The Court dismissed the appeal, ruling in favor of the Respondent, and ordered each party to bear their own costs.
|
