2020 (2) TMI 1165 - HC - Central Excise

Manufacture of un-machined castings - it was claimed by the Writ petitioner/Assessee that, it has filed the classification lists as to explain what amount of Castings the Assessee Company produced, the same was denied by the Revenue and ultimately, the Assessing Authority passed an order against the Assessee which was appealed before the First Appellate Authority - HELD THAT - Even though the learned counsel for the Assessee just and again reiterated that the Assessee has produced the classification list to establish that, it had manufactured unmachined castings, the fact remains that both the Appellate Authority as well as CESTAT concurrently held that no such classification list has been filed as claimed by the Assessee - In such view of the matter while sitting in the Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we cannot go over the said factual finding which has been concurrently found by both the Authorities. If at all the Assessee still feels to file classification list to establish its case for getting exemption of the duty, it is open to the Assessee to agitate the same in the manner known to law. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to CESTAT order on duty exemption for un-machined castings.

Analysis:
The Writ Petitioner, a manufacturer of iron castings, contested the classification of their products as un-machined or machined castings to determine duty exemption eligibility. The Assessing Authority denied the classification lists submitted by the Petitioner, leading to a duty levy and penalty upheld by the First Appellate Authority. The CESTAT affirmed this decision, noting the absence of classification lists proving the production of un-machined castings. The CESTAT rejected the plea of time limitation due to proven suppression of facts by the Petitioner. The duty demand and penalty were upheld, emphasizing the failure to demonstrate production of un-machined castings.

The Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution restrained the High Court from revisiting the factual findings of the lower authorities. Despite the Petitioner's claims of submitting the classification list, both the Appellate Authority and CESTAT concurred on its absence. The High Court emphasized that if the Petitioner wishes to establish duty exemption eligibility, filing the classification list through appropriate legal channels remains an option. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, indicating that the CESTAT could entertain a petition solely addressing the production of the classification list for further consideration. No costs were awarded in this matter.