Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise vs. M/S Wizard Fragrances
Held
The Court held that no substantial questions of law were raised. Regarding the first issue, the Court implicitly agreed with the Tribunal's findings of fact that the goods were not removed clandestinely and were available in the factory premises, rendering the confiscation, duty, and penalty unsustainable. This implies that the applicability of the Central Excise Act and Rules in this context, given the Tribunal's findings, did not warrant interference. The Court did not provide specific reasoning on the second issue concerning cross-examination, but by answering all questions of law in favor of the assessee, it suggests that any procedural deficiencies, if present, were either not substantial or were overshadowed by the factual findings. The appeal was dismissed, with the questions of law answered in favor of the assessee.
Facts
This is an appeal filed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise against an order of the Tribunal dated May 1, 2017. The appeal concerns goods covered under the Pan Masala Packing Machine (Capacity Determination & Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008. The department's contention was that the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Central Excise Rules, 2002, were applicable. The Tribunal, however, found that the assessee had made no attempt to remove goods clandestinely and all goods were present in the factory premises. Based on these findings of fact, the Tribunal set aside the order of confiscation, duty, and penalty against the assessee.
Key Issues
1. Whether the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Central Excise Rules, 2002, are applicable to goods covered under the Pan Masala Packing Machine (Capacity Determination & Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008? The department argued for the applicability of the Central Excise Act and Rules. 2. Whether cross-examination of a witness is an integral part of quasi-judicial proceedings? The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from either side on this specific question, but it is listed as a question of law to be answered.
Sections Cited
Section 35-G
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 35 Case :- CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL No. - 9 of 2018 Appellant :- Commissioner Of Cgst And Central Excise Respondent :- M/S Wizard Fragrances Counsel for Appellant :- B.K.Singh Raghuvanshi Counsel for Respondent :- Atul Gupta,Utkarsh Malviya Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. We had allowed the counsel for the department to re-frame the questions of law. However, he says that he has instruction not to frame any further question of law. We proceed to hear the matter. Heard Shri B.K.S. Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the department and Shri Atul Gupta, learned counsel for the assessee. This is a department's appeal filed under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against an order of the Tribunal dated 01.05.2017. The following questions of law are sought be answered by this Court, which is quoted hereunder:-
Whether the provision of Central Excise Act 1944 & Central Excise Rules 2002 are applicable on the goods covered under Pan Masala Packing Machine (Capacity Determination & Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008?
Whether, cross examination of witness is an integral part of quasi-judicial proceedings? After hearing both the learned counsel for the pa
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.