Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise And Service Tax Bilaspur vs. M/S Kalindi Ispat And Power LTD.

Held

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises for decision in these appeals. The Court referred to its separate judgment delivered on the same day in Tax Case-30 of 2017 and other judgments that were cited as precedents therein. The Court found that the CESTAT had rendered its findings after considering the relevant facts and that the questions of law suggested by the revenue were concluded against the revenue in those referred judgments. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on the ground that they did not present a substantial question of law for the High Court's consideration. The operative direction was the dismissal of all the appeals.

Facts

These are multiple tax cases filed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax (later Commissioner, Central Excise And Central Goods And Service Tax) against various private limited companies. The appeals are filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, challenging orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The core of the dispute revolves around findings rendered by the CESTAT after considering relevant facts and legal questions. The revenue's contention is that substantial questions of law arise from these CESTAT orders. The tax periods and specific amounts in dispute are not detailed in the provided judgment excerpt.

Key Issues

1. Whether substantial questions of law arise for decision in these appeals filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, challenging CESTAT orders. Petitioner's Argument (Commissioner): The petitioner argues that substantial questions of law arise from the CESTAT orders, necessitating a review by the High Court. They rely on the principle that appeals under Section 35G are maintainable if they involve a substantial question of law. Respondent's Argument (Assessees): The respondents likely argue that no substantial question of law arises, as the CESTAT orders were based on findings of fact and established legal principles. The judgment does not explicitly record the respondents' arguments, but this is the typical stance in such cases where the High Court dismisses appeals for lack of substantial question of law.