2015 (1) TMI 797 - HC - Central Excise

Demand of duty - Clearance without warehousing certificate SCN has been issued for clandestinely removal of said goods with intent to evade payment of duty leviable thereon Whether the Tribunal 2012 (10) TMI 769 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD was legal and correct in upholding the Order-in-Appeal issued in violation of the prescribed procedure by solely relying upon the purported signature of the departmental officers, whereas they did not consider the substantial fact of the investigations which revealed that the vehicle purportedly used by the respondent for transportation of goods under ARE-3A No. 10 was utilized by some other party at the material time - Held that - Tribunal concluded on the basis of the material that was made available to it. It also rightly pointed out that there was no claim on the part of the Department that any of the documents indicating clearly the proof of the goods having reached to the EOU at Calcutta, have been forged or the signature of officer being, in any manner, contradicted. The entire issue essentially is based on factual matrix. There is nothing in the findings of the Tribunal, which leads to conclude that there is any perversity giving rise to any question of law. - No sub substantial question of law arises - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act challenging the Tribunal's order based on procedural violation and factual discrepancies regarding transportation of goods and duty payment.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding Central Excise Duty on goods made from polyester dyed. The issue arose when the consignee failed to provide warehousing certificates, leading to a demand notice. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, alleging diversion of goods to evade duty payment.

2. An appeal was filed against the demand and penalty, which was allowed by the appellate authority. The appellate authority found supporting documents of warehousing and evidence indicating receipt of goods by the consignee, overturning the initial decision.

3. The Department challenged the appellate authority's decision before the CESTAT. However, the Tribunal, after reviewing the evidence, concluded that the goods were received by the Export Oriented Unit at Calcutta. The warehousing certificates were found to be in order, and the Custom house prevention officer confirmed the receipt of goods.

4. The High Court observed that the Tribunal's decision was based on the available material, with no evidence of forged documents or contradictory signatures. The Court noted that the issue was factual, and there was no indication of any legal question arising from the Tribunal's findings.

5. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Tax Appeal, stating that it did not raise any substantial question of law. The Court found no perversity in the Tribunal's decision and upheld the conclusion that the appeal lacked merit for further consideration.