2009 (6) TMI 110 - HC - Central Excise

Redemption fine and the penalty imposed under the provisions of the Central Excise Act and Rules and the Cenvat Credit Rules - whether is not enable in law? Held that - The Tribunal after considering the explanation offered by it has granted substantial relief to the appellant. It is the Revenue, who has to be aggrieved by the order but not the assessee. No substantial questions would arise for our consideration. The Tribunal has rightly referred to the rival legal contentions, adverted to the findings recorded in the impugned order with reference to the undisputed facts and granted the relief reasonably by reducing the redemption fine in lieu of confiscation of goods in exercise of its power and jurisdiction. Therefore, we do not find any good reason to answer the substantial questions in favour of the appellant as the same do not arise for our consideration. The appeal is devoid of merit

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Challenge to the correctness of the impugned Judgment by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Imposition of fines, penalties, and confiscation orders by the Tribunal.
3. Denial of Cenvat credit on the grounds of shortage.
4. Examination of legal grounds and explanation offered by the appellant.
5. Consideration of substantial questions of law and relief granted by the Tribunal.

Analysis:

1. The appellant challenged the impugned Judgment of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, questioning the conclusion that goods were clandestinely removed based on stock verification. The Tribunal imposed fines, penalties, and confiscation orders, which were contested by the appellant.

2. The appellant argued against the imposition of fines and penalties by the Tribunal, stating that the redemption fine and penalties under the Central Excise Act and Rules were not legally justified. The appellant contended that the Tribunal's reduction of penalties and fines was arbitrary and unreasonable, emphasizing the non-accountability of goods and raw materials.

3. Another issue raised was the denial of Cenvat credit due to a shortage of raw material, which the appellant argued was not legally tenable based on stock verification by departmental officers. The appellant relied on legal precedents to support their contention that the Tribunal did not adequately consider the grounds presented before it.

4. The Court examined the original order, appellate authority's decision, and the Tribunal's order to determine the validity of the substantial questions of law raised by the appellant. It was found that the appellant failed to properly account for finished goods and raw materials, leading to contraventions of Central Excise and Cenvat Credit Rules.

5. The Tribunal, after considering the explanations provided by the appellant, modified the redemption fines, penalties, and confiscation orders. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the relief granted was reasonable and that the substantial questions raised by the appellant did not warrant consideration. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as lacking merit.