AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We have heard Counsel for the appellant. The question involved in both these appeals are common. They have therefore, been heard together and are being disposed by a common order.
The Appellate Tribunal declined to uphold the demand of duty and penalty for certain period based only on high electricity consumption while granting the right for imposition of duty and penalty with regard to the undisclosed entries and production admitted by the respondent for the period 1-1-1999 to 16-2-1999. The matter has been remanded to the Original Authority for quantifying the duty liability with regard to the admitted period from 1-1-1999 to 16-2-1999.
Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that if the matter was being remanded to the Original Authority and there was an admission with regard to excess production not disclosed in the records for a particular period, the Department should have been permitted to re-examine the demand for the entire period and it should not have been confined to the period 1-1-1999 to 16-9-1999 only. There is sufficient material for fixation of liability with regard to the period excluding 1-1-1999 to 16-2-1999 also.
We have considered the submissions on behalf of the appellant.
The contention of the appellant as noticed in paragraph 8 of the order under appeal reflects its contention before the Appellate Tribunal with regard to the period 1-1-1999 to 16-2-1999 only. It does not appear that any ground was taken by the appellant that even otherwise there was independent material available with it to prima facie conclude higher undisclosed production for the period excluding 1-1-1999 to 16-2-1999. Furthermore, the Tribunal has relied up on another order passed by it in Commissioner of C. Ex., Meerut-I Vs. R.A. Castings Pvt. Ltd., affirmed by the Allahabad High Court and the appeal before the Supreme Court against it dismissed [ 2011 (269) E.L.T. A108 (S.C.)] to hold that demand of duty based only on electricity consumption could not be upheld.
We find that the pleadings in the memo of appeal are completely silent with regard to the findings in law by three forums to distinguish how they are inapplicable. Even the order passed in the case of M/s. R.A. Castings, has not been brought on record, much less any distinction pleaded.
Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 provides that an appeal shall lie to the High Court if it involves substantial questions of law. In the facts of the case, for reasons discussed by us, we do not find that the present appeals involve any substantial question of law. The appeals are dismissed.