TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 192
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ling the order No.FO/78328/2017 dated 30.11.2017 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata in Appeal No. E/446/2008-DC. 3. The present appeal was admitted by this Court under its order dated 20.02.2019 for hearing by formulating the following substantial questions of law: I. Whether the CESTAT was justified in concluding that the exemption as granted to the respondent was justified and in that light whether the conclusion as reached is perverse for non-consideration of the evidence said to have been produced by the appellant herein? II. Whether the order is perverse and in that regard as to whether the CESTAT has taken into consideration the materials available....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....It was also alleged that in terms of the exemption notification, the commercial production of such exempted units should have commenced on or after 24.12.1997 and there was no physical existence of the assessee unit till 31.01.2002 over the plot of land in question and the proprietor of the unit has also admitted in his statement that production started on 28.11.2005 after the respondent unit obtained central excise registration. Accordingly, it was alleged that the proprietor of M/s Polyplast products with an intention to have exemption benefit renamed the earlier unit as "M/s Rajdhani Tele Products" and obtained a new central excise registration. It was further alleged that the respondent unit was in existence only on paper and that durin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee has availed the benefit of exemption by means of false declaration by producing forged documents and suppression of material facts. 6. The findings of the Appellate Tribunal: The Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner on basis of the following considerations: I. The Authority concerned after verification of the application of the appellant unit by order dated 10.12.2002 allowed the exemption benefit to the unit and it is reflected and recorded in the order of exemption dated 10.12.2002 that the factory was visited and it was found that the plants and machineries are in existence and in operation as declared by the assessee. It was verified and confirmed that the commercial production of the unit s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the investigation ought to have been done either prior to grant of exemption or immediately thereafter inasmuch as the learned appellate Tribunal has ignored the material that Rajdhani Tele Products commenced production by using the machines of M/s Polyplast in the same premises and thus the divisional authority who conducted the verification was misled by the assessee. II. The learned appellate authority also failed to appreciate the fact that the divisional authority who granted exemption and the Anti Evasion Unit are two independent authorities and investigation was launched on the basis of intelligence inputs gathered. Therefore, the judgment of the appellate authority is perverse. 8. Arguments Advanced on behalf of the Resp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issioner of Income Tax Vs. P. Mohanakala reported in (2007) 6 SCC 21. 9. Determination of this Court: I. This court has given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. II. It is well settled that the power of the High Court under section 35G of Act, 1944 to interfere with an order passed by an Appellate Tribunal is very limited and the same can be done, only when the Court is satisfied that the case involves substantial questions of law. III. Finding of facts reached by an Appellate Tribunal cannot be interfered or reversed in an appeal under section 35G of the Act' 1944 without coming to a conclusion that the said ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s declared by assessee were mostly found present. Therefore, the conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal in discarding the Investigation report on ground that the investigation was done in the year 2005 and not immediately after the exemption was granted, cannot be faulted with. Therefore, the course of action adopted by the appellate authority in placing reliance on the recorded facts in the order dated 10.12.2002 granting exemption cannot be said to be perverse. VII. The allegations levelled in the show cause notice dated 29.10.2007 and confirmed in Commissioners order dated 30.11.2007 are based on the foundation that no purchase of plants and machinery was made as claimed by the assessee and such allegations has been established th....