2001 (7) TMI 150 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Petitions under Section 35G(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 seeking reference of a question of law to the High Court.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Facts and Allegations:
The case involved allegations of suppression of production and clandestine removal of steel ingots by the company. Surveillance revealed discrepancies in the transportation of steel ingots, leading to a show cause notice being issued to the company and its directors for confiscation of goods, imposition of Central Excise Duty, and penalties.

2. Legal Proceedings:
The Commissioner initially disposed of the matter in 1992, followed by an appeal to the Tribunal, which remanded the case for further consideration. Subsequent orders by the Commissioner and the Tribunal led to consolidated appeals being dismissed in 1997. The petitioners then sought reference to the High Court under Section 35G(1), which was denied by the Tribunal, resulting in the current petitions under Section 35G(3).

3. Contentions and Arguments:
The petitioners argued that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal, highlighting discrepancies in evidence and the basis for determining production, particularly focusing on electricity consumption as a central issue. They contended that the Tribunal's findings were incorrect and the order was vitiated.

4. Evidence and Tribunal's Findings:
The Tribunal considered oral testimonies, documentary evidence, and reports related to electricity consumption, production records, and discrepancies in statutory records and clearances. Despite some conflicting statements from employees, the Tribunal firmly found evidence of clandestine removal of goods and upheld its decision based on a comprehensive review of all evidence.

5. Electricity Consumption Dispute:
A key point of contention was the consumption of electricity for production, with the petitioners arguing that the Tribunal's findings were based on insufficient evidence from a single monthly report. However, the Tribunal's decision was supported by various records, rough pads, sales tax records, and octroi receipts indicating discrepancies in production records.

6. Validity of Tribunal's Order:
The High Court concluded that the Tribunal's order was legally sound, supported by the evidence on record, and not open to challenge. The Court rejected the petitioners' arguments regarding the age of equipment and upheld the Tribunal's findings on electricity consumption and production discrepancies.

7. Final Decision:
After a thorough review of the case, the High Court dismissed the petitions, finding no legal grounds for interference with the Tribunal's order. The Court held that no question of law arose for its opinion, affirming the legality and validity of the Tribunal's decision.

This detailed analysis covers the issues, facts, legal proceedings, contentions, evidence, Tribunal's findings, and the High Court's final decision in the judgment.