2014 (12) TMI 700 - HC - Central Excise

Court Upholds Excise Duty Decision: Evidence Key, Appeals Dismissed

KRISHNA SCREEN ART & 2 Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision confirming excise duty liability based on evidence including statements and packing registers, rejecting appeals ... Clandestine removal of goods - estimation of value of clearance - demand based on packing and folding register - non consideration of production capacity and electricity consumption figures - Held that:- Tribunal has given its conclusion on the factual finding based on evidence on record. Such findings cannot be stated to be perverse. When the Tribunal is final fact finding authority, any interference in the factual conclusion of the Tribunal would be permissible only if it is demonstrated that such findings are perverse in sense that the same are not based on evidence on record or that irrelevant evidence is taken into account. Findings and conclusions of the Tribunal were based on evidence on record. Such evidence was not confined to a single statement of the proprietor. It is true that reliance was placed on such a statement which was not impermissible since the statement was never retracted. However, it would be incorrect to suggest that the conclusions of the Tribunal were based on a single factor namely unretracted statement of the proprietor. No substantial questions of law arise in these appeals - Decided against assessee. Issues:1. Confirmation of excise duty liability without deciding if fabrics were processed on power-operated machines.2. Violation of principles of natural justice in the final order.3. Justification and sustainability of duty demand and penalties.4. Confirmation of duty demand without corroborative evidence.5. Alleged error in confirming excise duty demand based on processing methods.Issue 1:The appeal questioned the confirmation of excise duty liability without determining if the fabrics were processed on power-operated machines. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals based on the unretracted statement of Mr. Rajen Jariwala, the proprietor of the concerned entities. The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in relying solely on this statement without independent evidence supporting duty liability. However, the Court found that the Tribunal's factual conclusions were based on evidence on record, including the packing registers and statements of Mr. Jariwala and Mr. Solanki. The Court emphasized that interference in factual conclusions is permissible only if they are perverse, which was not the case here.Issue 2:The contention of violating principles of natural justice in the final order was raised. The appellant argued that the order was based on a single statement without adequate corroborative evidence. However, the Tribunal's decision was upheld as it was supported by various factors, including the unretracted statement of Mr. Jariwala and the packing registers. The Court emphasized that the conclusions were not solely based on the proprietor's statement but on multiple pieces of evidence, thus dismissing the appeal.Issue 3:The justification and sustainability of duty demand and penalties were challenged. The appellant claimed a lack of independent evidence regarding procurement, consumption of electricity, and sales. However, the Tribunal's decision was deemed valid as it was supported by the packing registers maintained at the premises, which contained details of processed fabrics. The Court noted that the appellant's objections were considered but ultimately rejected, as the evidence on record supported the duty demand and penalties.Issue 4:The confirmation of duty demand without corroborative evidence was contested. The appellant argued against the reliance on Mr. Jariwala's statement and the absence of evidence regarding various operational aspects. However, the Tribunal's decision was upheld as it was based on multiple pieces of evidence, including the packing registers and statements of involved individuals. The Court found that the conclusions were not solely reliant on the proprietor's statement but were supported by other evidence on record.Issue 5:The alleged error in confirming excise duty demand based on processing methods was raised. The appellant claimed that the fabrics were hand-processed at one entity but recorded as processed on power-operated machines at another. The Tribunal's decision was upheld as it considered the statements and packing registers to establish the link between the entities and the processing activities. The Court found no merit in the argument challenging the confirmation of duty demand based on processing methods, ultimately dismissing the appeals.