Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s Saraswati Rubber Works Pvt. Ltd & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Once the aforesaid findings are the basis of the order of the Tribunal, it would hardly lead to inference that a question of law would arise for determination of this Court much less a substantial question of law, as envisaged by Section 35G of…
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Senior Standing Counsel (Indirect Taxes) for the appellant. Mr. O.P. Goel, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents.
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The revenue has approached this Court under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), challenging order dated 3.8.2006, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’).
The Tribunal has proceeded on the findings that adjudicating proceedings have been concluded without releasing the seized (un-relied) documents and that in the absence of those documents the dealer-assessees were not in a position to file proper CEA No. 69 of 2008 2 reply to the notice or participate in the proceedings meaningfully. The other premise on which the Tribunal has proceeded is that the dealer-assessees were not allowed the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements have been relied upon in the proceedings.
Once the aforesaid findings are the basis of the order of the Tribunal, it would hardly lead to inference that a question of law would arise for determination of this Court much less a substantial question of law, as envisaged by Section 35G of the Act. We have tried to spell out from the order of the Commissioner the lack of opportunity in returning the seized documents, in permitting the cross-examination of the witnesses whose statements were recorded under Section 14 of the Act and the prejudice which might have been caused to the dealer-assessees. We have no reason to displaced the findings recorded by the Tribunal. As far as the seized documents which were required to be returned, the same is also supported by Circular No. 42/88-CX.6, dated 24.5.1988 and Circular No. 171/5/96- CX., dated 2.2.1996. We are further of the view that the Tribunal has taken correct view by remanding the case to the Original Authority for passing the order afresh by adopting fair procedure and by issuing direction to the revenue-appellant to return the un-relied documents as per the circulars. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE CEA No. 69 of 2008 March 17, 2009 Pkapoor 3 (H.S. BHALLA) JUDGE
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.