2009 (8) TMI 684 - HC - Central Excise

Substantial question of law - we find that the first question whether show cause notice was issued to the supplier-respondent is a pure question of fact It cannot be regarded as a question of law much less a substantive question of law Accordingly the remedy of revenue would be to approach the Tribunal for rectification by moving appropriate application. - The second question whether the goods were misdeclared again would be a question of fact. - Therefore, we find that no question of law much less a substantive question of law warranting admission of the appeal would arise. The instant appeal is wholly without merit and does not warrant admission.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the show cause notice was issued to the supplier-respondent.
2. Whether Modvat credit is admissible on invoices with intentionally misdeclared goods.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the Tribunal's order stating that the goods were misdescribed in the invoices as alloy steel when they were actually non-alloy steel. The Tribunal found it to be a mistake and noted that no show cause notice was issued to the manufacturer regarding the wrong description. The High Court held that the issue of whether the show cause notice was issued is a question of fact, not a substantive question of law. The Court advised the revenue to seek rectification from the Tribunal if needed.

2. The second issue raised was whether Modvat credit is allowed on invoices with intentionally misdeclared goods to avoid proper assessment. The High Court noted that the goods received were non-alloy steel, not alloy steel as described in the invoices. The Court deemed this to be a question of fact, and the appropriate remedy would be before the Tribunal. The Court concluded that no substantive question of law arose for admission of the appeal. The appeal was deemed without merit and dismissed, with the option for the appellant to approach the Tribunal if necessary.