Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2018 (1) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2018 (1) TMI 1264 - HC - Central Excise


Issues:
Appeal against final order by CESTAT - Set aside order by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) - Seizure of goods - Imposition of penalties - Clandestine clearance of goods - Confiscation of seized goods - Personal penalties on individuals and traders - Substantial question of law.

Analysis:
The appeal before the High Court was made by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-II against the final order dated 5th August, 2008 by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT had set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) regarding a show cause notice issued to the respondent and others for engaging in clandestine clearance of certain brands of pan masala containing tobacco. The Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence had gathered intelligence leading to the search of premises and seizure of goods. Statements were recorded during the investigation, and a show cause notice was issued demanding Central Excise duty and proposing penalties under the Central Excise Act and Rules. The appeal to CESTAT resulted in the dismissal of the order confirming the demand, leading to the present appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise.

The CESTAT, in its impugned order dated 5th August, 2016, held that since the proceedings initiated by the Revenue to establish clandestine clearance and demand of duty were set aside in a separate order, the seizure of goods in the present case was also deemed unsustainable and set aside. The personal penalties imposed on individuals and traders were also set aside. The CESTAT relied on its earlier decision dated 15th January, 2016, which invalidated the proceedings related to clandestine removal and demand. Consequently, the impugned order of the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) were considered unsustainable in law.

The High Court noted that a previous appeal by the CCE against the CESTAT's order dated 15th January, 2016, was dismissed by the Court on 11th April, 2017, as no substantial question of law arose. Therefore, the High Court found that the impugned order of the CESTAT in the present case also did not give rise to any substantial question of law. As a result, the appeal was dismissed with no orders as to costs. Additionally, an application for stay was disposed of in view of the dismissal of the appeal.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates