Central Excise Appeal No. 71 of 2014. Case: Rathi Re-Rolling Mills Vs Commissioner of Central Excise. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Central Excise Appeal No. 71 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shri Prakash Shah with Jas Sanghavi i/b. M/s. PDS Legal. and For Respondent: Shri Pradeep S. Jetly, Adv. |
| Judges | S.C. Dharmadhikari and Sunil P. Deshmukh, JJ. |
| Issue | Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Rules 25, 26 |
| Citation | 2015 (327) ELT 18 (Bom) |
| Judgement Date | February 25, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Order:
-
This appeal of the assessee challenges the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai.
-
By the impugned order dated 24th July, 2013, the Tribunal has affirmed the findings in the order of the First Appellate Authority, namely, the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the findings in the Order-in-Original, both, on duty liability and penalty.
-
Mr. Shah would submit that this appeal raises substantial questions of law and those formulated at pages 7 and 8 of the appeal paper-book. He would submit that the Tribunal''s order is unjust and unfair, because it contains no reasons. Here, a partnership firm has been charged with not paying total duty, though shortages have been admitted. Mr. Shah submits that the Tribunal has proceeded on the footing that because the shortages are admitted, there is no adjudication required and the liability is undisputed. Therefore, it proceeded to confirm the demand.
-
Mr. Shah alternatively submits that given the admission of shortages, there cannot be penalties in law on both, the partnership firm and the partners. Similarly, if penalties have to be imposed on the firm alone, there is a requirement in law of recording a satisfaction that it was an intentional or deliberate act, which resulted in evasion of duty. He has invited our attention to the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) and particularly in para 10 of his order to contend that the penalties could not have been imposed in view of the same. Therefore, he submits that the appeal be admitted.
-
On the other hand, Mr. Jetly would submit that the concurrent findings of fact are not perverse not vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. He therefore submits that the appeal be dismissed.
-
After hearing both sides and perusing the orders under challenge, we are of the view that the appeal does not require admission on the finding with regard to shortage of duty paid inputs, on which credit was availed. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture of MS Square, Bars and MS Ingots falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff. On 17th June, 1994, the unit of the assessee was visited by officers of the Revenue and on physical stock taking, shortage of 810.076 metric tonne ingots was found. In respect of finished products, there was a shortage of 439.932 metric tonne. The partners of the appellant/assessee could not explain the...
To continue reading
Request your trial