1999 (6) TMI 154 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Alleged contravention of Rule 57GG of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 by M/s. CTC.
- Imposition of penalty on M/s. CTC for issuing Modvatable Invoices.
- Tribunal's findings on the evidence presented by the Revenue.
- Tribunal's conclusion on the violation of Rule 173Q (bbb) by M/s. CTC.
- Determination of whether the question raised constitutes a question of law.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the alleged contravention of Rule 57GG of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 by M/s. CTC. The Revenue contended that M/s. CTC did not receive steel materials in their registered premises despite holding a Central Excise Dealers Registration Certificate and issued Modvatable Invoices. Consequently, a penalty was imposed on M/s. CTC by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal examined the evidence, including circumstantial aspects such as godown facilities, handling facilities, transport details in invoices, and sale prices, to determine if a violation had occurred.

2. The Tribunal's detailed analysis of the evidence revealed that while certain suspicions were raised based on the evidence presented by the Revenue, M/s. CTC provided plausible explanations for the discrepancies. The Tribunal noted that the evidence did not conclusively establish a violation of Rule 173Q (bbb) by M/s. CTC. The Tribunal emphasized that the sufficiency of evidence is not a question of law, citing the precedent set by the Apex Court in the case of Meenakshi Mills (31) RLT 28.

3. Based on the findings and analysis of the evidence, the Tribunal concluded that M/s. CTC had not committed an offense warranting the imposition of a penalty under Rule 173Q (bbb). The Tribunal's decision was grounded in the assessment of the facts and evidence presented by both parties. Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the question raised by the Commissioner in the Reference Application did not constitute a question of law.

4. In light of the above analysis, the Tribunal rejected the Reference Applications, affirming its finding that M/s. CTC had not violated Rule 173Q (bbb) and therefore, the penalty imposed on them was unwarranted. The judgment underscores the importance of a thorough examination of evidence in determining legal violations and highlights the distinction between questions of fact and questions of law in adjudicating such matters.