2004 (4) TMI 89 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Reference application under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act with nine questions for reference to the High Court.
2. Allegation of evasion of central excise duty by the assessee.
3. Controversy regarding actual manufacturing of equipment by the assessee in its factory.
4. Suppression of actual state of affairs by the assessee.
5. Findings of fact by the Tribunal.
6. Additional points raised by the assessee.
7. Interpretation of Section 35G of the Central Excise Act.
8. Application for reference rejected.

Analysis:

1. The reference application under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act sought to raise nine questions for reference to the High Court. These questions were not repeated in the judgment.

2. The assessee, engaged in manufacturing electrical distribution control panels, was alleged to have evaded central excise duty by claiming duty only on a small part of the goods while actually manufacturing the entire control panels in its factory.

3. The controversy revolved around whether the assessee had been actually manufacturing the full equipment in its factory as opposed to just the panel frames as declared in the duty paying documents. The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed suppressed the actual state of affairs and committed deliberate fraud on the Central Excise Authorities.

4. The Tribunal's findings were based on the conclusion that the assessee had actually manufactured the full equipment in its factory and not just the panel frames, leading to short levy of excise duty due to the suppression of the real value of the goods.

5. The findings of the Tribunal were considered as findings of fact, and the High Court could not interfere with them in the reference application.

6. The High Court noted that the additional points raised by the assessee were not raised before the Tribunal and therefore did not arise out of the Tribunal's order.

7. The interpretation of Section 35G of the Central Excise Act was discussed in relation to raising questions of law before the Tribunal, emphasizing that unless a question is raised before the Tribunal, it cannot be considered as arising out of the Tribunal's order.

8. The High Court rejected the application for reference, stating that the findings of the Tribunal were pure findings of fact and did not raise any question of law. The contention regarding the extended period of time under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act was also dismissed based on the clear finding of suppression by the assessee.