2017 (11) TMI 736 - HC - Central Excise

Correctness of Tribunal s decision in remitting the matters to the authority for reconsideration of the same - Held that - In view of the observation made by the Tribunal, more particularly instructions issued by the Textile Commissioner that each year they will give 50% cotton yarn which has not been verified or cross-checked by the authority. The Tribunal has not committed error in remitting back the matter to the authority. Therefore, no case is made out - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Tribunal's judgment remitting matters for reconsideration.

Analysis:
The High Court admitted Excise Appeals and framed substantial questions of law regarding the admissibility of voluntary statements under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act and the remand by CESTAT to redetermine duty only for specific goods. The appellant argued based on statements recorded from the Managing Director and other employees, contending that the Tribunal's view was not supported by evidence considered by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the original Assessing Authority.

The respondents relied on the Tribunal's decision, highlighting the retracted statement of the Technical Supervisor regarding the machinery's capability to manufacture cross reel hank yarn. The Tribunal emphasized the need for corroborating evidence to rely on retracted statements, mentioning test reports and lack of substantial evidence beyond the retracted statement. The Tribunal concluded that duty could only be charged for goods found to be cross reel hank yarn, remanding the matter for re-determination of duty liability and penalty quantification based on this finding.

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, noting the absence of verification or cross-checking by the authority regarding the instructions issued by the Textile Commissioner. The Court found no error in remitting the matter back to the authority, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee against the department on both issues. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and the order was directed to be placed in another file.