2009 (1) TMI 289 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Petition under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 seeking direction to the Tribunal to refer questions of law arising from its order dated 30-1-2002.

Analysis:
The petition sought direction to the Tribunal to refer two questions of law to the High Court. The first question pertained to whether the Tribunal was justified in granting benefit of ignorance of law and bona fide belief to a manufacturer fully aware of tax statutes. The second question queried whether availing credit of duty paid on inputs in contravention of the Central Excise Act, 1944 warranted invoking Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal's order confirmed duty demand for March 1999 but set aside the demand for February 1999 due to discrepancies in the record entries. The Tribunal's modification of the Commissioner's order was based on the factual position that non-accountal Modvat credit for March 1999 could have been disallowed. However, after hearing the arguments at length, the High Court found no question of law arising from the Tribunal's order. The High Court rejected the Revenue's counsel's attempt to refer the questions as the Tribunal did not grant ignorance of law benefit to the dealers and there was no contravention of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Consequently, the reference petition was dismissed.

This analysis highlights the key issues raised in the petition under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the subsequent High Court judgment regarding the questions of law arising from the Tribunal's order dated 30-1-2002. The judgment provides a detailed examination of the Tribunal's decision on duty demand for February and March 1999, emphasizing discrepancies in record entries and the Tribunal's rationale for modifying the Commissioner's order. The High Court's assessment of the questions raised in the petition underscores the lack of legal issues warranting determination, leading to the dismissal of the reference petition.