Gujarat High Court
Commissioner Of Central Excise ... vs Mukesh Industries Ltd....Opponent(S) on 7 May, 2015
Bench: Vijay Manohar Sahai, R.P.Dholaria
O/TAXAP/340/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL NO. 340 of 2015
==========================================================
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AHMEDABAD I....Appellant(s)
Versus
MUKESH INDUSTRIES LTD....Opponent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MRS VD NANAVATI, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA
Date : 07/05/2015
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI) We have heard learned advocate Ms. V.D. Nanavati for the appellant.
This tax appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:
(a) Whether non-filing of an appeal in a connected matter can be a ground for refusing to consider the matter on its own merits especially when the order has been passed by the competent authority on merits?
(b) Whether non-filing of an appeal before the High Court because of lesser revenue loss in another proceedings be a bar against revenue for filing tax Page 1 of 4 O/TAXAP/340/2015 ORDER appeal in connected proceedings?
(c) Whether the Hon'ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad, while passing Order No. A/11681/2014 dated 19.9.2014 in Appeal No. E/250/2008, has erred in law and principle that an order not appealed by the revenue because of law revenue loss can be deemed to be an acceptance on merits in another proceedings?
(d) Whether the Hon'ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad, while passing Order No. A/11681/2014 dated 19.9.2014 in Appeal No. E/250/2008, has exceeded the jurisdiction vested in it by not deciding the appeal on merits but relying on previous order passed by the Tribunal in another connected matter without appreciating the fact that specific reasons has been cited by the appellate authority while confirming the demand of duty and penalty?
(e) Whether the Hon'ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad, has exceeded the jurisdiction by not deciding the appeal on merits and allowed the appeal of the assessee without dealing with the findings by the first appellate authority while raising the demand?
(f) Whether the Hon'ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad, is correct in setting aside the demand raised under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to the assessee though the assessee has Page 2 of 4 O/TAXAP/340/2015 ORDER confessed about duty evasion and there are corroborative evidences to prove the evasion of Central Excise Duty?
(g) Whether the Hon'ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad, is correct in ignoring/not considering the statemets of the Director and the authorized signatory of the said assessee, recorded by the Central Excise Officers under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, supported by the corroborative evidences found/recorded at the units to which the goods were supplied by the said assessee?
(h) Whether the Hon'ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad, is correct in relying upon the defence reply dated 5.4.2006 of the said unit and cross-
examination of the panchas which has occurred after a period of almost five years of booking of the case?
(I) Whether the Hon'ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad, is correct in dropping the demand merely on wrong mentioning of dates of search due to clerical/typographic mistake in the panchnama though the assessee had confessed about the facts of the panchnama and duty evasion and there are corroborative evidences to prove evasion of Central Excise Duty?
(j) Whether the Hon'ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), West Zonal Bench, Page 3 of 4 O/TAXAP/340/2015 ORDER Ahmedabad, is correct in ignoring the facts of the panchnama, which were admitted by the Director and the authorized signatory of the said assessee and which are supported by the corroborative evidences found/recorded at the units to whom goods were supplied by the said assessee? Issue notice to the respondent. Paper book to be filed within three months.
(V.M.SAHAI, ACJ.) (R.P.DHOLARIA,J.) (pkn) Page 4 of 4