The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal against an order of CESTAT. The Court held that no substantial question of law arose for interference under Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act as the issues were primarily questions of fact.
The appeal is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
TAXC No. 25 of 2017
Commissioner, Central Excise Customs and Service Tax, Raipur.
---- Appellant
Versus
M/s Shivalaya Ispat & Power Pvt. Ltd., Vill- Kara, Guma, Urla Road, Raipur
---- Respondent
For Appellant : Shri Vinay Pandey, Advocate For Respondent : Shri Neelabh Dubey, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Sharad Kumar Gupta, Judge
Order On Board
Per Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Chief Justice
16/08/2017
2
Directors was on the lower side on the scales of what the department had fixed to carry up such matters to the Courts of higher jurisdiction. But the fact of the matter is that the substance of the claim and the demand and imposition of penalty were made on the Company and its Directors on a common ground, which is fundamentally referable to mixed questions of facts and law discernible from paragraph 5 and 5.1 of the impugned order of CESTAT. The question whether the demands based on triplicate copies of invoices were sustainable or not; and whether, the Revenue had disclosed the source of the invoices relied on by it were matters in dispute. When such issues have been answered in a wholesome manner by the Tribunal thereby allowing the appeals by the Company as well as those by the Directors, the findings rendered by the Tribunal would bind the Revenue insofar as they are against the Company as well as the Directors. The finality attained to the appeals filed by the Directors, would, therefore, now stare at the Revenue, when this appeal against the Company is now taken up. This matter falls in the realm of resjudicata in appeals.
3
4. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal fails.
Sd/Sd/-
(Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan) (Sharad Kumar Gupta) Chief Justice Judge
Kamde
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there is a substantial question of law to interfere in favour of the Revenue through an appeal under Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act.
Whether the findings rendered by the Tribunal bind the Revenue insofar as they are against the Company as well as the Directors.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Commissioner, Central Excise Customs and Service Tax, Raipur
M/s Shivalaya Ispat & Power Pvt. Ltd.
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan
Sharad Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
