The Commissioner, GST(East) vs. Vimla Rolling Mills PVT. LTD.

Held

The Court held that no substantial question of law arose for determination from the impugned common order of the CESTAT. The Court found that the CESTAT's view, based on an appreciation of the evidence, was not improbable. Specifically, the Court noted that Mr. S. K. Chopra's statement, initially relied upon by the Department, was retracted, with Mr. Chopra claiming it was recorded under threat of arrest. Furthermore, the CESTAT found the explanations from Mr. Gopal Krishnan and Mr. S. K. Chopra regarding the 102 slips in File 25 to be contradictory and therefore unreliable. The Department's counsel was unable to persuade the Court that there was any perversity vitiating the CESTAT's findings. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Commissioner were dismissed.

Facts

The Commissioner, GST (East), New Delhi, appealed against a common final order dated 28th December, 2016, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT had allowed appeals filed by Vimla Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Rohit Agarwal against an order-in-original dated 27th March, 2009, passed by the Commissioner Central Excise. The original order confirmed a demand of Rs. 4,34,73,449.87/- along with penalty and interest. The demand was based on searches conducted on 21st September, 2005, where unaccounted copper ingots and kachiparchis were allegedly found. The Department relied on three slips from File 27 and 102 slips from File 25 of seized records to raise the demand.

Key Issues

1. Whether the CESTAT's finding that the evidence relied upon by the Department, specifically slips from File 27 and File 25, was unreliable, is perverse and raises a substantial question of law under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944? Petitioner's arguments: The Department argued that the figures in slips No. 2 and 3 from File 27 indicated daily production, end-of-day stock, and fuel oil quantity, and relied on the statement of Mr. S. K. Chopra. For the 102 slips in File 25, the Department relied on statements from Mr. Gopal Krishnan and Mr. S. K. Chopra. The Department contended that the CESTAT's appreciation of evidence was improbable. Respondent's arguments: None recorded.