2000 (6) TMI 225 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upholds Decision on Setting Off Excess Vehicles, Emphasizes Evidence Appreciation

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III Versus MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III Versus MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 382 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Acceptance of accuracy of private document partially and setting off excess against shortage.2. Legal validity of setting off vehicles of different models.Issue 1: Acceptance of accuracy of private document partially and setting off excess against shortageThe Revenue filed Reference Applications challenging the Tribunal's Final Order, raising questions regarding the acceptance of accuracy of a private document partially. The main objection was the allowance of set off of 56 excess vehicles against 126 vehicles found short. The Tribunal observed that the computer-generated data was more reliable as it included identifying numbers like consecutive Chassis S. Nos. and Engine number. The Tribunal noted that the excess of 56 vehicles was identifiable with running consecutive serial numbers and engine numbers, present in the computer-generated data. However, the 126 vehicles found short could not be located in the data due to the absence of identifying numbers. The Tribunal concluded that there might have been errors in manual entries in the statutory register and decided to set off the excess against the shortage. The Tribunal held that since the decision was based on facts and evidence appreciation, no question of law arose. Consequently, the Reference Applications were rejected.Issue 2: Legal validity of setting off vehicles of different modelsThe Revenue argued that the Tribunal allowed the set off of 56 vehicles of different models against 126 vehicles of different models, which were not comparable. The Revenue contended that there was no evidence supporting the hypothetical claim of human error in making entries in the statutory register. The Respondent, however, emphasized that the Tribunal's findings were based on identifiable vehicles with consecutive serial numbers and engine numbers, present in the computer-generated data. The Respondent argued that since the Tribunal's decision was factual and based on evidence appreciation, no legal question arose. The Respondent cited precedents to support the contention that if a conclusion is based on evidence, no question of law arises. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the Reference Applications, emphasizing that the decision to set off was grounded in factual analysis and evidence appreciation, not giving rise to any legal issues.This judgment clarifies the principles governing the acceptance of private documents, the validity of setting off excess against shortages, and the importance of factual findings in legal disputes. The Tribunal's decision highlights the significance of evidence appreciation and factual analysis in resolving disputes, emphasizing that legal questions arise when decisions are based on legal principles rather than factual assessments.