2009 (8) TMI 109 - HC - Central Excise

Customs Tribunal Decision Upheld on Input Receipt & Penalty under Central Excise Act

The High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's order regarding receipt of inputs and penalty ... Appeal to High Court - Finding of fact - it was established that the input has not been transported in the vehicle mentioned in the invoices and therefore no such inputs were required in the factory of the appellant-assessee as per the requirement of Rule 57(9) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Issues involved:Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 challenging the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the receipt of inputs, applicability of penalty, and adherence to previous court decisions.Analysis:1. Receipt of Inputs:The Tribunal found that the inputs were not received by the appellant in the vehicles mentioned in the invoices. This conclusion was based on a report from the Regional Transport Officer certifying that the vehicle registration particulars did not match the goods transport vehicles. The appellant's claims of missing gate registers and destroyed bills/vouchers were dismissed as the ledger and registers containing transaction entries could have been produced. The mismatched vehicles, including auto-rickshaws and motor cycles, indicated that the inputs were not transported as per Central Excise Rules, 1944, thus not required in the factory.2. Substantial Questions of Law:The appellant raised four substantial questions of law, including the validity of the Tribunal's decision based on vehicle numbers in invoices, lack of alternative source of input supply, failure to follow a previous High Court decision, and the imposition of penalty without evidence of non-receipt of materials. However, the High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for determination as the Tribunal's findings were factual and based on evidence. The Court emphasized that it cannot re-evaluate evidence to arrive at a different conclusion, even if an alternative view is possible.3. Dismissal of Appeal:The High Court dismissed the appeal as misconceived and imposed costs of Rs. 5,000 on the appellant. The costs were directed to be deposited with the Member-Secretary, Legal Services Authority, Punjab. The Court's decision was based on the lack of legal issues warranting review and the factual nature of the Tribunal's findings, emphasizing the inability to overturn factual determinations based on evidence and official records.