Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus., Hyderabad

S.R. Nayak, J.—In this reference case filed u/s 35H(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, the petitioner has prayed the Court to direct the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) to draft the statement of the case and refer the following questions to this Court for adjudication.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal was right in holding the M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited is a manufacturer of dragline who is liable to pay excise duty on the same?

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal was right in confirming the confiscation of the dragline and levy redemption fine of Rs. 1.75 crores particularly in the absence of mens rea and clandestine removal and that too, at this distant point of time when the department had already lost its right to collect the duty?

We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for Central Government and perused the orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise and CEGAT. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner before the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise that the manufacture of dragline was not a secretp2 operation on the part of the petitioner company and that they procured the materials from Heavy Engineering Corporation. From this contention, it is quite clear that even according to the petitioner company, the Dragline was manufactured in the premises of the petitioner company. And to the same effect is the contention before CEGAT also. It is pointed out in the order of the CEGAT that the learned counsel, who appeared for the petitioner, did not seriously contest the for the turn of manufacture of Dragline. A perusal of the order of CEGAT clearly indicates that the petitioner company attacked the order of the Commissioner mainly on the question of quantum of redemption fine. The only contention urged before the Commissioner as well as before CEGAT on behalf of the petitioner company was that the manufacture of Dragline was not a secret affair and therefore they were not liable to be imposed with redemption fine. In that view of the matter, we do not find any error on the part of CEGAT in declining to refer the questions to this Court for adjudication.

In the result, the reference case is dismissed.