2018 (10) TMI 83 - HC - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - case of appellant is that their clearances, even as per the amount mentioned in the show cause notice is only ₹ 23,82,886/-, which is well below the threshold limit - Benefit of the N/N. 8/98-Central Excise dated 02.06.1998 - burden to prove - Held that - The exemption notification should be interpreted strictly and the burden of proving the applicability would be on the assessee to show that his case comes within the parameters of exemption notification - In the instant case, the asseessee has miserably failed to prove that their case comes within the conditions stipulated in the exemption notification. Therefore, the Tribunal as well as the adjudicating authority have rightly rejected the case of the assessee. Appeal dismissed - decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Consideration of appellant's submissions by Tribunal
2. Reliance on statements of witnesses for decision
3. Rejection of appellant's prayer for benefit under statute
4. Impact of fraud on legal rights
5. Alleged discrimination in granting legal rights
6. Verification of documents by Tribunal

Issue 1: Consideration of Appellant's Submissions
The appeal challenged the Tribunal's decision based on substantial questions of law. The appellant contended that the Tribunal violated principles of natural justice by only considering the respondent's averments and not the appellant's grounds of appeal or oral submissions. The Tribunal also allegedly ignored the appellant's right to be heard fully.

Issue 2: Reliance on Witness Statements
The Tribunal's decision was questioned for relying on statements of witnesses who did not appear for cross-examination despite summons. This raised concerns about the fairness and credibility of the evidence considered in reaching the decision.

Issue 3: Rejection of Benefit under Statute
The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in rejecting their prayer for benefit under Notification No.8/98-Central Excise, claiming exemption from excise duty due to their clearances being below the threshold limit. The Tribunal upheld the original authority's decision, denying the benefit based on the appellant's duty payments and options exercised.

Issue 4: Impact of Fraud on Legal Rights
The Tribunal's stance on fraud nullifying legal benefits bestowed by statute was contested by the appellant. The Tribunal's decision was based on the view that fraud does not entitle the perpetrator to claim benefits under the law. This raised questions regarding the interpretation and application of legal rights in cases involving fraud.

Issue 5: Alleged Discrimination in Granting Legal Rights
The appellant alleged discrimination by the Tribunal in not allowing certain legal rights enjoyed by others, thus violating the appellant's fundamental rights. This issue questioned the consistency and fairness in granting legal benefits to different parties under similar circumstances.

Issue 6: Verification of Documents by Tribunal
The appellant raised concerns about the Tribunal's role as the final fact-finding authority without verifying any documents. The Tribunal's decision was criticized for not thoroughly examining the factual matrix and documents presented in the case.

In the judgment, the Court upheld the decisions of the Tribunal and the adjudicating authority, emphasizing the strict interpretation of exemption notifications and the burden of proof on the assessee to establish eligibility. The Court cited relevant legal principles, including the need for strict interpretation of exemption notifications and the applicability of the rule in favor of revenue in cases of ambiguity. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, and the substantial questions of law were answered against the appellant.