Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S Pals Microsystems Ltd on 1 July, 2008
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANG&LOR_E
mrma mxs THE 133' mm? W JULY 2008 , i
PRESEHT'
THE HONBLE B&R.JUS'1'ICE V.G_{_)PA_.LA
TE-IE 1~1ms:'BLE n»flQ.J{I8TIC3;§€.5VI
CENTRAL EXCISE;APPEA.LVVVRn.?;9/206'?-..
BETWEEN:
"?¥>3= Fiaer, '}'ra<:i& C€f3i4{i'}j;"';. . ' "
Bmzts _E-lasts! '
Mangaiore 2375 {'!Q3;;__ " ' A_ ..«.Appel1aI1£
Tine iibnzmissisner {zrf ' 'fientrfaf * -- V_
" {i33r_flSAri &*..§4ia1fi;}rg2$ad, Adv.)
M / 5. P823 l\iIi<ii*c>s§y5;:%teV:13§_$j ALVt;s<:i;.,:-7
No.1-1232,, E'~f@t_T avaihy" '
V.Baimat"££2: V' .....
AMa1*;ga}£::re¥'i:'. ....Resp0:3.<:1ent
"T.h"iS Excise Appeal is flied iiildfiii" Sec.35(}
the a::',en:ra; «-Excise Act, 1944 arising out of Order
datcd 2G..12;«2006 passed in Fina} Ofdfii" 2G88f2O0€2 in
NGE/261/2005 praying to éacicie the
$_u~?js1:an7téal question of law stated therein and ii} aflow
this '-a'p;1:x:~;:'aE and set asid_e tfae said fmal Omar in the said
" sigipeai in the: inierest ofjustice.
M
' afifiréténded that, the decision of the Apex Court in
fiixam Sugars --vs Ca er of Cerfiral Excise,
2
'§'§"1i$ Centrai Excise Apgmai comixig on for
admission this day, Gopala Gcwda, J., deiivttrtrd iiizi»
fo1i0wing:- T
mnamm
'i'he c:orre(:"£;z1ess of {ha 0I'5£§'fM passaé' = --j .4 'V
C'L1S{G}3:1S, Excise 35 Service Tax
Sauth Zena} BSIECITTE, Baz1galore ('Lg shV.:2'.3'x".:t ""':°¥;1e*
daied 20.22.2086 in Appea: rgég-Sxcige/égljjkéaeg is
questioned in this appéa¥i. é;Ifg7§11g.»':?éiri€;fiS --§g'roLmds. In
support 0f the apfzaai, q;.3;es%;§.{§;1S' Qf. fresmed in
¥.A.I/08 am} _-- £o= _L;a.si.__::ic{' ordex' by
aflowing t:}::iS"5:;j:i:§::al;V': %
°'.'1. . Wi1et;h.<'§:rV ._'iY:'ib1:I1ai right: in
hr;:1ding~- Ltlzat V';3h€sw »-- 6221136 notice issued
b€1at€C11}5"%%?1'1t3I1V',t§1€re"'§$ a suppressian <31'
fagéis 31151 ~ saxna was detected on
., 25f'}G;;..19*96 but,""S'1:bs€q1i6nt1y issued the
. ' 'ZS«hO'£§S~Ca.L1Sf3,flOiiC€.
' W'ii3ét.i':er {ha Tribuma} right in
izgalciirgg {.11.-git the Asst.<'I:ommissi0ner has
:10": _t.::§i{e11 pennissian fram the
Corfimissianer to iI1V{}k€ the praviso ta
.. A' Simtion .1 }.--A cf the Act?"
.' The iearned cceunsel for the appeiiam-fevenue
Hyderabad reparted in 2006(197} F.L.'1'.465{S.C.) in
which Case the appeai was allawed on the gouflé that
appeal is barrad by limitation.
3. The $316 decisiam has 316 appiication L-fT:3.:§?;sA
0f 'siha case an hand as the "Fribu11al 0ughi_§G~--..%}a%Lé_§& {_a1{%::":._V
irzta fififlfiidiifaiififi fact thai the}>aCti{§:1jj.¥ias':
[3€':§fii"'{fl}€I1i by issuigzg _fse<.:; 0i1civ._.s311;E3zv~Ca1:$»e
natices to Ehfi asaesség Q}/:1 ii1¢§--3;iI§g§é§}.'jfizppressialz of $16
facts and {ha case on
25. 10. 19%' was issued an
26.5.2€3@€"¥_'f:::: i%;%~ii:§ass:é$s%2 " is Wei} within 315 '($11163 IJresc::*-ibedi "$§iefef{>re, ha cozitafideé ihat the §$si3iSi{§I'i §.14<3._VZ'€i?a':13;'s§Ar:7a:3§%'L'stated supra has 1710 appiicaiion :€)_**Li<;:e:fac§s ofA'fi'.:é?..__€a.s@. .F'urther, {ha 1ea.r:1es:l couz1sel fer ' plactsd strong reiiarzce upon thafi decision ';':;é.;j<)'rt%_§<f% 'i};1V.'5' 2007 AIR saw 6819 in the case of Fibre Cm, Modinagar, {IF »-« vs-
I, ., af C dse, Meerut {P¢zra=-I 5}.
4. with rafarence :0 {ha above said Eegal comemion, we have carsfuily examinad the ., fact r'eco1*deci by the Tribunal in the i§npu§1ed'?:}§f3j"d;:V;':VV:£§'i§' "
the question csf limitation in injiti;%:ti§1g_ 1];2r<;e::.éje§'i_§7.r1g:'s7«' against. the assesses ta: find out w!"ii€,_§1::€:r substantial questions of 13%? i1*2._V_:i§ifs; would arise far our coI2si£i;'::fa_ti;mii"'affir:'(}" a;.t;e i'e:ii;3¢ir:=:d to be answered in faveur vAA'§"%Zf:"_'3&1"1S¥'i7€I' the aferesaid questic}2"1s {i§fi.* tffi Vtha Revenue for ihfi foH<>im*i,§§g '4 V
5. féazandad ths sase tics mes: Jain: Excise who is the ASS€S$i.I"_1g= A11thO;fi3;3?"fcr §'t:m1ducti1'1g dermvo snquiry as " .;;*éa1"°"ikgéfiriégéfll' {3:»c:¢;* 1®{1*m7/05 datetd 28.6.2985 rightiy the" T1<*i?c1i:1;eii-«._f1a2$';'v.further xnadc: an observatian in the "i:_npugi1€d girdaf thai denovo enguéry' is required to be " :éegji:i.11{:t$d the Jeirzt COE1{11'I1iSSiOI'1€I' 0f Centrai Excise {'§:;{ri5:a&i{iex*if1g all the issues that 11:13.3; be raised by the . V Vv [ gésessee. g/D brought :9 the notice in the yeair 1999 hut the dais mad momzh is net specified in the $l"I(.}W~C8.i.IS€ n£§t;T;:%§%';._'Tha Tribunal has bald tha: SHOW-»€EiLi$€ notice Esééfiis '§:~n"r 26.6.i2()()0 which is barreé by Liiiximziiofi %1a§z; ~V{V1Vi}"WI"iv"i-I"1Vb the decisicm in the case of N T Sugarfi -:"f€:f;€§*;f}¢*<:§V"'i:::s_ supra, H:3w§:v€r, in 1:%1s3«.._ "'3hmv?<:az3:::g r§::»:;Vi?::'&,' 61$"
gugpressiarz cf the ;r5y"£hé: assesses was ma'é'.ice<i by the Cenirai Excise thaii 11:3 visif;€si§L1:f1€ aggé. Therrafoffi, the a findirxg sf fact 12o:di;;g"ti2%€j:§1§ i11itiatTe€1 by issuing tha sgI%1<>'.i>;'z:;aii:§3e' 2.6.6.2880. 'E'h€ref0r€:, the:
T:'ibt_1na1 f1as"rfig§f1fi:;?_'ft3£§0rded a finding of fact stating izfifiation 5f"p;*éceedirags againsi the assessee anal _ é:1flST"f3f:<*:S5':Vsf!::'Vé*z2'VfLA.{_::21*';'j.§€:' passed by the amassing authority is b:1;'1*edVhyfiirriiiatiexa. T116 said fmdirgg of fact is based 0:1 uz1cii$;;;:§=ied fact. Therefore, the legal C0fit€1"}§T§0§3. tirgezi in iiziggappeal by the 1€aI'E}€(1 munsei on E:>€:ha}f 0!' Revenue 2 ziiacirzg re:lia1'1s*:c: upon M/s.?vI<3dip01§'s Case E'€f6f'§'f;3€3. {3} supra has :15» ap§3Ei<:ati{;n mm is H}iS}3}&{f€Ed. In Gui' €:®m$%.<i€i;%:<:§ View, the £'1:'1di:'1g sf fact :'"e*c0rci<3<:i by the h\._/ Trihunai in the imigugnad ordsr is based on 1,1I"lé'§.S_p1lt€Ci facts' Therefare, the substantial questicrm of in this Appeai dc not arise fer our c0z1si&€éf;éati.:)n,"i'%:Yei'1£ij6,V' the same are requiresfi £0 hc""'a11s§¥§?:re{3 a5g:3.i:1sf téjxe 7 Revenue. Aa::ca2"di11gly, W3 araswér,
8. Hance, this appeal is'-;é i3:;:iss£é&.avs same Le devoid of merit.