9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds [2018 (362) E.L.T. A241 (Tri.-Del.)]. It is submitted that the first count of error is that the CESTAT ignored a prior statement recorded of an employee of one of the assessees, which was subsequently retracted on a narrow ground and second, that the appraisal of technical issues with respect to the slicing or cutting of copper cathodes and its feasibility with the kind of equipments that the assessee possessed, was suspect and that the CESTAT's findings are erroneous on this score. 2. The facts in brief are that one of the assessees - M/s. J.V. Industries Pvt. Ltd. [hereafter "JVIPL"] which was manufacturing copper ingots and rods and other related materials, and another entity - M/s. Ganpati Rolling Private Ltd. [hereafter "GRPL" ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication, which is the subject matter of present proceeding. 5. The second issue urged was that the findings of the Commissioner of Central Excise with respect to the unfeasibility of the equipment for carrying out the cutting operation was in fact erroneous because it placed reliance upon the so-called 'expert opinion'. The assessee highlighted in their appeal before CESTAT that the said expert - one Sh. V.K. Mittal was not cross-examined at any stage of the proceedings. 6. The Judicial Member of CESTAT rendered findings adverse to the Revenue. The Technical Member, however, chose to record prima facie view and issued remand. In these circumstances, four questions were formulated specifically for consideration of a third Member, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n this aspect. Likewise, the CESTAT's acceptance of the explanation that the statement was retracted later has an intensely factual basis which does not appear to present any substantial question of law. 10. With respect to the second question, i.e. the feasibility of the nature of equipment that the assessee possessed at site, the CESTAT discussed this in the following manner : "29. The next issue is whether JVIPL was having the infrastructure to manufacture copper ingots or rods from copper cathode. The main reason, which weighed with Learned Commissioner is that JVIPL was not equipped to use copper cathode. We note that SG in his subsequent statement dated 30-8-2010 have explained the manner in which the copper cathode was c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed fact that JMWIPL, Jammu, have a close furnace, whereas the furnace of JVIPL Delhi is an open furnace. It is an admitted fact that burning loss is bound to be more in their open furnace. Thus, we hold that the allegation in the SCN, regarding capacity to utilize copper cathode by JVIPL is not tenable." 11. This Court is of the opinion that the analysis of the CESTAT - i.e. the Judicial Member's decision which was agreed by the third member to whom the question was referred, is sound and is a plausible one. The Revenue's disagreement with these findings ipso facto cannot result in substantial question of law. 12. For the above reasons, there is no merit in the appeals; they are accordingly dismissed along with the pending appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
