1994 (1) TMI 95 - HC - Central Excise

Judgment directs timely appeal hearing on excise duty eligibility, emphasizing factual vs. legal interpretation

The Court allowed the writ petition, directing the Customs, Excise, and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal at Madras to hear the petitioner's appeal within ... Appellate Tribunal Issues:Jurisdiction of the Tribunal regarding the rate of duty of excise or the value of goods for assessment.Analysis:The petitioner, a sugar manufacturer, availed a concessional rate of excise duty by placing sugar at the Government's disposal. Dispute arose when a penalty was imposed for alleged failure to supply sugar as per the conditions of the notification. The petitioner contended that the Regional Tribunal, not the Special Tribunal, should decide the issue. The Special Tribunal asserted jurisdiction. The Revenue argued that the Special Tribunal lacks jurisdiction in such matters, requiring a Special Bench. However, the Court held that the issue at hand is factual - whether the petitioner supplied sugar to the Government for concessional duty. The decision hinges on facts, not interpretation of the notification, rendering the Revenue's objection unsustainable.The Court allowed the writ petition, directing the Customs, Excise, and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal at Madras to hear the petitioner's appeal within three months. The judgment clarifies that the dispute revolves around factual determination of whether the petitioner fulfilled the conditions for concessional excise duty, emphasizing that this factual issue does not necessitate interpretation of the notification. The decision highlights the distinction between factual inquiries and legal interpretations, underscoring that factual determinations fall within the purview of the Regional Tribunal, not the Special Tribunal designated for legal and interpretative matters.