2005 (12) TMI 39 - HC - Central Excise

Appeal Dismissed: Tribunal Decision Upheld

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision. The Tribunal's findings were deemed valid and in line with the evidence. The ... Tribunal concluded that order in remand has not been complied with –Dept. failed to show how the Tribunal’s finding are incorrect or against the record – HC upholds Tribunal decision on the ground that the same was based on evidence on record – no question of law arise – Revenue’s appeal dismissed Issues:- Appeal allowed on procedural/technical grounds ignoring merit- Appeal allowed without cross-examination of witnesses- Appeal allowed raising doubt on department's actionsAnalysis:1. The appellant-revenue raised three questions challenging the Tribunal's decision. Firstly, whether the Tribunal could allow the appeal on procedural/technical grounds while ignoring the merit of the case, especially when the employee's confessional statement was not retracted and supported by other evidence. Secondly, whether the Tribunal could allow the appeal without the cross-examination of witnesses, arguing that such a procedure is unnecessary in taxation matters. Lastly, whether the Tribunal could have raised doubts on the department's actions, considering the delay caused by the assessee in the proceedings and the issue of cross-examination to cover up the un-retracted confessional statement of their employee.2. The Tribunal, in a previous order, had remanded the matter back to the Commissioner of Central Excise for de novo adjudication due to the lack of cross-examination of witnesses essential for establishing the case against the appellant. However, in the subsequent round, the Commissioner did not call for cross-examination of certain officers, leading to the Tribunal's observation of bias and non-compliance with the remand order. The Tribunal noted a desire to confirm liabilities, which was deemed unacceptable.3. The Tribunal found no error in its findings, and the appellant's advocate failed to demonstrate any inaccuracies in the Tribunal's conclusions. The appellant's memorandum of appeal contained sweeping statements criticizing the Tribunal's decision-making process, which were deemed immature and lacking in substance. Despite the appellant's objections, the Tribunal's findings were upheld as not being contrary to the evidence on record, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal as no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's decision, which was found to be based on valid considerations and in accordance with the evidence presented during the proceedings.