2013 (4) TMI 55 - HC - Central Excise

Law of retraction - whether retraction after a period of 9 months can be considered to be valid? - allegation that respondent has manufactured goods from clandestine raw-material and removed the goods and evaded the payment of duty. Held that - The Tribunal has recorded clear finding that when the premises of the respondent were visited, the stock of raw-material and finished goods were tallying with the recorded goods. Further, nothing on record was found by the authority, which showed that unrecorded raw-materials were purchased or consumed by the respondent or that the respondent had clandestinely manufactured or removed the goods. The findings of the Tribunal can be interfered only if some material evidence is ignored. In such circumstances, only the Court may exercise jurisdiction on issue which may give rise to any substantial question of law. In this appeal, no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Issues:
1. Admissibility of civil application alongside appeal.
2. Challenge to Tribunal's order under Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Maintainability of appeal based on substantial questions of law.
4. Allegations of clandestine manufacture and duty evasion.
5. Settlement proceedings before the Settlement Commissioner.
6. Tribunal's findings on stock verification and lack of evidence for clandestine activities.
7. Judicial interference with Tribunal's findings.
8. Existence of substantial questions of law for Court's consideration.

Analysis:

1. The High Court considered the admissibility of a civil application alongside an appeal, with the appellant's counsel stating that the civil application could be heard only after the appeal was admitted. The Court, with the parties' consent, decided to hear both the civil application and the appeal at the admission stage.

2. The appeal was filed under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, challenging the Tribunal's order. The appeal raised substantial questions of law regarding the reliance on previous Tribunal orders and the sufficiency of evidence indicating clandestine manufacture.

3. The respondent contended that the appeal under Section 35-G would be maintainable only on substantial questions of law, and argued that the Tribunal's findings were just and proper.

4. The appellant alleged that the Tribunal's findings were perverse, claiming that the respondent had engaged in clandestine activities, used fake invoices, and evaded duty. The appellant also highlighted the Tribunal's failure to consider relevant materials.

5. The Settlement Commissioner's proceedings were discussed, noting that the matter was to be adjudicated before the competent authority following a writ petition challenging the duty demand.

6. The Tribunal's findings regarding stock verification and the lack of evidence supporting clandestine activities were detailed, emphasizing the absence of proof of unrecorded purchases or consumption of raw materials.

7. The Court reviewed the Tribunal's findings and concluded that there was no evidence of clandestine manufacture by the appellant, leading to the dismissal of the appeal due to the lack of substantial questions of law.

8. It was established that the Court could interfere with the Tribunal's findings only if they were perverse or if material evidence was ignored. Since no substantial question of law arose in the appeal, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding the appeal devoid of merit and dismissing it accordingly.

← Previous Next →