TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 1073X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MR. VIKRAM NATH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Appearance: MR ANKIT SHAH(6371) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR PARESH M DAVE(260) for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. This tax appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed against the order passed by the Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Western Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad dated 05.12.2019 in the Customs Appeal No.C/10749/2017. The Revenue has proposed the following questions for the consideration of this Court:- (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has committed substantial error of law by reducing the rede ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 112 of the Act when the very same person has been penalized under Section 114A. However, according to Mr. Shah, there does not seem to be any prohibition under Section 112A of the Act to impose penalty on any person whose role in the offence has been defined and established. He pointed out that the respondent, namely, Sanjaykumar M. Patel has not been penalized under Section 114A of the Act, 1962. 5. We are of the view that none of the two questions proposed by the Revenue could be termed as the substantial questions of law. We can do no better than refer to a direct decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import) vs. Stoneman Marble Industries, reported in 2011 (264) E.L.T 3 (SC), wherein the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion of law stated in the application for reference before it should be directed to be referred. (See: B eer Sain Vs. Commissioner of Customs (ICD)2) (2007) 15 SCC 362. It is manifest from the format of the questions proposed by the Revenue, extracted in para 6 supra, for reference to the High Court that the Revenue did not assail the Tribunal's finding to the effect that the facts in the instant cases were similar to those in M/s. Stonemann Marble Industries (supra). It is a trite proposition that unless the correctness of facts, on the basis whereof an inference is drawn by the Tribunal, is put in issue, a question of law does not arise from its order. 12. In Dhirajlal Girdharilal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax , Bombay a Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal and to give an answer in law to the question of law that is before it. 8. The only jurisdiction of the High Court in a reference application is to answer the questions of law that are placed before it. It is only when a finding of the Tribunal on fact is challenged as being perverse, in the sense set out above, that a question of law can be said to arise. 14. In Sudarshan Silks Sarees Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2008) 12 SCC 458, this Court had observed that: Question as to perversity of the findings recorded by the Tribunal on facts was neither raised nor referred to the High Court for its opinion. The Tribunal is the final court of fact. The decision of the Tribunal on the facts can be gone into by the High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue did not discharge its burden under Section 130A of the Act in as much as it did not specifically challenge the Revenue's aforestated finding as being perverse. In this view of the matter, the High Court was justified in declining to issue direction to the Tribunal to make a reference under Section 130A of the Act. 6. Thus, whether redemption in the redemption fine and penalty was justified or not is essentially a finding of fact and no material has been adduced by the Revenue to establish that the order of the Tribunal was perverse. In Stoneman Marble Industries (supra), it has been held that redemption fine and penalty would essentially be a question of fact. 7. The second question as proposed by the Revenue also e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
