Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2018 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 1670 - HC - Central ExcisePrinciples of Natural Justice denied - Non independent application of mind - various contentions raised were not dealt with - retracted statements - clandestine manufacture and removal of tobacco/gutkha without payment of central excise duty and education cess - Whether the appellant is right that the order passed by the CESTAT is contrary to law as it does not examine and discuss the contentions and issues of facts and law as raised and had arisen for consideration? - Whether the findings recorded by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal are perverse as they do not meet the mandate and requirement of law? Held that: - The Tribunal is the final fact finding authority under the Act i.e. the Central Excise Act, 1940. As a final fact finding authority and the first appellate authority against the order-in-original in the present case, the Tribunal was required to examine the statements, documentary evidence, consider the effect of retraction with reference to the legal position and thereupon arrive at definitive and considered decision. No doubt, as the final fact finding authority, the Tribunal can rely upon the reasoning, findings or inferences given in the order-in- original there has to be also fresh and independent application of mind and not a mere reproduction and repetition even if the final conclusion is one of affirmation. In the present case, the impugned order on all aspects and contentions merely reproduces the order-in-original, without specifically and independently examining and dealing with diverse contentions. Reference and independent and exhaustive elucidation of the factual contentions raised by the appellants and consideration of legal issues based upon the said contentions is conspicuously lacking and missing. The impugned order suffers on this account. The impugned order fails to independently and specifically deal with and examine the contentions raised by the appellants. The aforesaid substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the appellants and against the respondent with an order of remand to the Tribunal for fresh decision.
|