2013 (3) TMI 163 - HC - Central Excise

Court Upholds Tax Appeal Decision, No Question of Law

The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision in a tax appeal case, dismissing the appeal and finding no substantial question of law. The Tribunal's ... Cenvat Credit - Duty paying document - Penalty u/s 11AC - allegation of wire rods and wire bars not having been received - held that:- Tribunal noted the fact that none of the statements have been retracted till date and the seized documents were never questioned at any point of time by the appellant. In short, it can be stated that there is extensive discussion on every argument that had been made by the the appellant. It also took note of the fact that this was an issue of clandestine activity relying on decisions of the Courts. It also was of the opinion that for all these kind of activities, all possible details cannot be substantiated by documents. However, all that had been put forth by the Department against the appellant was found to be sufficient by the Tribunal for upholding the order of Commissioner. In our opinion, there does not appear to be any error on part of the Tribunal in upholding the demand raised by the Department by way of show cause notice nor is there any perversity which would give rise to any substantial question of law for this Court to entertain this Tax Appeal. - Decided against the assessee. Issues involved:1. Disallowance of credit availed on duty paying documents defaced by excise department officers.2. Consideration of irrelevant materials and ignoring relevant ones by the Tribunal.3. Failure of the Tribunal to consider decisions cited by the Appellants.4. Confirmation of demand on goods prior to RG1 stage due to lack of accounting.5. Allegation of finished goods clearance without duty payment.6. Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.Analysis:Issue 1: Disallowance of credit on defaced duty paying documents:The Tribunal disallowed the credit availed on duty paying documents defaced by excise department officers. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the Tribunal erred in its findings. The Tribunal based its decision on the statement of a supervisor and the lack of denial from the appellant regarding production capacity and job work. The Tribunal found the appellant's defense unconvincing and upheld the disallowance of credit.Issue 2: Consideration of irrelevant materials by the Tribunal:The Tribunal was accused of considering irrelevant materials and ignoring relevant ones in reaching its decision. The appellant contended that the Tribunal's findings were perverse and beyond the scope of the show cause notice. The Court examined the facts, including statements from various individuals and the show cause notice, and found no error in the Tribunal's analysis. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision in this regard.Issue 3: Failure to consider cited decisions by the Appellants:The Tribunal was criticized for not considering the decisions cited by the Appellants. The Court reviewed the Tribunal's reasoning and found that the Tribunal had adequately addressed the arguments presented by the Appellants. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's decision did not warrant interference on this ground.Issue 4: Confirmation of demand on unaccounted goods prior to RG1 stage:The Tribunal confirmed the demand on goods prior to the RG1 stage due to lack of accounting. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the Tribunal's findings were based on flawed analysis. The Court examined the evidence, including statements and production records, and found that the Tribunal's decision was well-founded. The Court upheld the demand on unaccounted goods.Issue 5: Allegation of finished goods clearance without duty payment:The Tribunal upheld the allegation that finished goods were cleared without payment of duty. The appellant disputed this claim, arguing that the Tribunal failed to consider relevant evidence. The Court reviewed the Tribunal's analysis, which included statements and production figures, and found no error in the Tribunal's decision. The Court upheld the finding of finished goods clearance without duty payment.Issue 6: Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act:The Tribunal imposed a penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant challenged this penalty, claiming it was unjustified. The Court examined the facts and the Tribunal's reasoning, finding that the penalty was warranted based on the evidence presented. The Court upheld the imposition of the penalty.In conclusion, the Court dismissed the Tax Appeal, finding no substantial question of law warranting its consideration. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision on all issues raised by the Appellant, emphasizing the thorough examination of facts and evidence conducted by the Tribunal.