2001 (3) TMI 121 - HC - Central Excise

Dismissal of Writ Petition Challenging Tribunal's Decision on Alleged Goods Suppression

PK. RAVINDRAN Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., COCHIN

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Tribunal's decision on alleged suppression of production and clandestine removal of goods ... Clandestine production and removal Issues involved: Alleged suppression of production and clandestine removal of goods during 1981-86, violation of Rule 173E of Central Excise Rules, failure to consider relevant evidence, denial of fair opportunity to present case.Alleged Suppression of Production and Clandestine Removal:The Tribunal and Commissioner found that there was suppression of real production and clandestine removal of goods during 1981-86. The proprietor and his employee admitted to production exceeding what was recorded in the RG 1 register. Statements from buyers also confirmed receipt of unaccounted quantities from the petitioner's factory. Movement of unaccounted goods from the factory was evident. The decision was based on a combination of factors, not solely on electricity consumption.Violation of Rule 173E of Central Excise Rules:The counsel argued that the guidelines in Rule 173E were ignored, citing the number of employees and electricity consumption as insufficient for the alleged production quantity. However, the Court noted that determining production solely based on electricity consumption certificate while ignoring other evidence of clandestine production is unsafe. There is no rule mandating acceptance of claimed power utilization as the limit for production capacity.Failure to Consider Relevant Evidence:The counsel referred to a Kerala High Court judgment stating that failure to consider proper material vitiates the order. However, the Court found that the authorities had considered and appreciated all relevant facts in reaching their decision. The petitioner had the opportunity to present its case before the Tribunal, which thoroughly evaluated the contentions but found them unconvincing.Denial of Fair Opportunity:The petitioner claimed unfairness due to an adjournment request being denied when counsel was in Delhi for another case. The Court held that parties and their representatives are expected to be present for proceedings, and the petitioner had sufficient chances to present its case. The Tribunal's decision was based on merit and did not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no grounds for interference with the Tribunal's order.