Case Note & Summary
The Revenue filed an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), South Zonal Bench, Bengaluru dated 18.02.2016. The CESTAT had allowed the appeal of the assessee, M/s. Bell Ceramics Ltd., holding that the assessee had reversed the CENVAT credit before removal of inputs as waste. The Revenue contended that this finding was erroneous and raised a substantial question of law. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found that the CESTAT's conclusion was based on appreciation of evidence and was a pure finding of fact. The court noted that no substantial question of law arose from the impugned order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Central Excise - CENVAT Credit - Reversal of Credit - Substantial Question of Law - The Revenue appealed against CESTAT's order allowing the assessee's appeal on the ground that the assessee had reversed CENVAT credit before removal of inputs as waste. The High Court held that the finding of fact by CESTAT that the credit was reversed is a pure finding of fact and does not give rise to any substantial question of law. The appeal was dismissed. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the CESTAT's order gives rise to any substantial question of law under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. No substantial question of law arises.
Law Points
- Substantial question of law
- CENVAT credit reversal
- Pure finding of fact
- Section 35G Central Excise Act
- 1944
Case Details
2018 LawText (KAR) (07) 22
Dr. Vineet Kothari, Mrs. S. Sujatha
Mr. K.V. Aravind (for Appellant), Mr. K.S. Ravishankar and Mr. N. Ananda (for Respondent)
The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Bengaluru-I Commissionerate
M/s. Bell Ceramics Ltd., (Now Orient Bell Ltd.)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against order of CESTAT.
Remedy Sought
Revenue sought to set aside CESTAT order and answer substantial questions of law in its favour.
Filing Reason
Revenue aggrieved by CESTAT's finding that assessee had reversed CENVAT credit before removal of inputs as waste.
Previous Decisions
CESTAT allowed assessee's appeal vide Final Order No.20260/2016 dated 17.02.2016.
Issues
Whether the CESTAT's order gives rise to any substantial question of law under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Submissions/Arguments
Revenue argued that CESTAT erred in holding that credit was reversed before removal of inputs as waste.
Assessee supported CESTAT's finding as a pure finding of fact.
Ratio Decidendi
A finding of fact by the Tribunal, based on appreciation of evidence, does not give rise to a substantial question of law under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Judgment Excerpts
The Revenue has filed this appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 raising the purported substantial questions of law to be arising from the order of CESTAT...
The CESTAT's finding that the assessee had reversed CENVAT credit before removal of inputs as waste is a pure finding of fact.
Procedural History
CESTAT allowed assessee's appeal on 17.02.2016. Revenue filed appeal under Section 35G before High Court on 25.07.2018.
Acts & Sections
- Central Excise Act, 1944: 35G
