2017 (11) TMI 1101 - HC - Central Excise

Liability of interest - Whether Tribunal was right in law in allowing the appeal of revenue with regard to imposition of interest u/s 11AB of the Act, especially when it is an admitted fact that the liability to pay the disputed duty arose on 18.12.2000 i.e. prior to the day when provisions of Section 11AB were not in force in terms of Section 11AB (2) of the CEA, 1944? - Held that - the observations made by the Tribunal is contrary to record and the matter is required to be remitted back to the Tribunal. It is made clear that the matter is remanded only on the ground that finding arrived at by the Tribunal is contrary to the record and the judgment which is relied upon by the appellant will be considered while deciding the matter afresh by the Tribunal - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Issues Involved:
1. Appeal against Tribunal's judgment allowing department's appeal.
2. Substantial questions of law framed by the court.
3. Contention regarding marketability of seized goods.
4. Contrary findings of Tribunal to appellant's claims.
5. Defense taken before the authority.
6. Observations made by the first Appellate Authority.
7. Decision to remit the matter back to the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the Tribunal's judgment allowing the department's appeal, specifically contesting the finding against him. The substantial questions of law framed by the court pertained to the imposition of interest and penalty under Sections 11AB and 11AC of the Act, considering the timeline of duty liability and deposit of disputed duty. The appellant argued that the Tribunal's decision was contrary to the record, emphasizing the appellant's claims and defenses presented throughout the proceedings.

2. The court examined the contention regarding the marketability of seized goods, noting the absence of evidence supporting the claim that the goods had no market value. Reference was made to a legal precedent outlining the criteria for determining marketability, emphasizing the commercial identity of the goods known to the market. The court analyzed the appellant's statements and defenses, highlighting discrepancies between the appellant's claims and the findings of the authorities.

3. The appellant relied on the defense presented before the authority, asserting that the seized goods were not cleared in the market but used as inputs in the manufacturing process of final products for export. The first Appellate Authority upheld the confiscation of goods recovered without proper documentation, emphasizing the duty demand for goods removed without maintaining proper accounts, leading to the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC.

4. The observations made by the first Appellate Authority referenced legal precedents and circulars clarifying the imposition of mandatory penalties equal to the amount of duty evaded. Despite decisions in favor of the appellants by the Tribunal, the Authority upheld the penalty imposition while setting aside the demand for interest under Section 11AB due to payment made before the show cause notice issuance.

5. Ultimately, the court decided to remit the matter back to the Tribunal, noting that the Tribunal's findings were contrary to the record. The court directed the Tribunal to reconsider the matter, emphasizing that the judgment relied upon by the appellant should be considered during the fresh decision-making process, independent of the previous Tribunal ruling.

This comprehensive analysis covers the various issues raised in the legal judgment, highlighting the arguments, defenses, and decisions made throughout the proceedings.

← Previous Next →