2009 (7) TMI 307 - HC - Central Excise

Credit - Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the dealer- respondent had produced a copy of invoice showing truck number and also produced G/R issued by the transport company showing the same truck number - Octroi receipts were also produced which bear the same truck number. Even weighment slips were also of the same truck number - On that basis the Tribunal held that credit could not be denied to the dealer-respondent on the ground that registered dealer had not received the material. Accordingly it has been rightly held by the Tribunal that the credit is available to the respondent. - we find that the findings recorded by the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. Once the Tribunal has taken the particular view on the basis of evidence then any other view, even if possible, cannot be preferred. The High Court under Section 35G of the Act does not sit as a court of appeal to re-appreciate the evidence and record a new finding of fact. appeal dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order of the Tribunal.
2. Tribunal's finding regarding the dealer-respondent's receipt of inputs from registered dealers.
3. Tribunal's decision on the availability of credit to the respondent.
4. Legal infirmity in the Tribunal's findings.
5. High Court's role under Section 35G of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to an appeal filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The Tribunal had made specific findings regarding the dealer-respondent's receipt of inputs from registered dealers. The Tribunal considered various pieces of evidence, including invoices, G/R issued by the transport company, octroi receipts, and weighment slips, all bearing the same truck number. Based on this material, the Tribunal concluded that the dealer-respondent had indeed received the inputs from registered dealers under the cover of invoices showing payment of duty.

2. Upon a thorough review of the Tribunal's findings, the High Court determined that there was no legal infirmity that would justify the interference of the Court. The judgment emphasizes that once the Tribunal has arrived at a particular view based on the evidence presented, the Court cannot substitute its own view, even if an alternative interpretation is possible. The High Court clarified that it does not function as a court of appeal under Section 35G of the Act to reassess the evidence and establish new facts. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, stating that no question of law, let alone a substantive question of law, arose for determination.

3. The crux of the matter revolved around the availability of credit to the respondent. The Tribunal's decision to allow credit to the dealer-respondent was upheld by the High Court, emphasizing that the evidence presented supported the conclusion that the inputs were received from registered dealers under the cover of valid documentation. The judgment highlights the importance of factual findings by the Tribunal and the limited scope of review by the High Court under Section 35G of the Act.

4. In conclusion, the High Court's role under Section 35G of the Act was clarified in this judgment. The Court affirmed that its function is not to reevaluate the evidence or substitute its findings for those of the Tribunal. The judgment underscores the principle that the High Court's jurisdiction in such matters is restricted to questions of law and does not extend to re-examining factual determinations made by the Tribunal. As a result, the appeal was deemed misconceived and dismissed accordingly.