COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. TALSON MILLS STORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana, is before us, challenging the correctness of order dated 17.07.2012 (Annexure A-4), passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, Principal Bench, accepting an appeal filed by the respondent thereby setting aside penalty. Counsel for the revenue submits that as the respondent was implicated by one Shri Sachin Aggarvanshi, who admitted that he had not received any goods but only supplied invoices to dealers including the respondent, the statement made by Shri Sachin Aggarvanshi is sufficient to implicate the respondent, thereby obviating any further enquiry. It is further submitted that as the Tribunal is not justified in reversing findings of fact recorded by the Assessing Officer and the Appellate Authority, the following substantial question of law arises for consideration:--

(2.) We have heard counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned order as well as the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Appeals and find no reason to hold that any question of law much less the question framed arises for adjudication. The learned Tribunal, has after appraisal of the entire record, rightly held that the absence of enquiry against the respondent or further verification of statement made by Shri Sachin Aggarvanshi, the respondent has been wrongly penalised. The Tribunal has also held that the revenue did not conduct any further enquiry from any transporter or actual manufacturer of goods to verify whether goods were not received by the respondent or that Shri Sachin Aggarvanshi's statement applies to the respondent's goods. This apart, the learned Tribunal has also held that the respondent was not associated with the enquiry conducted against Shri Sachin Aggarvanshi. A relevant extract from the order passed by the Tribunal, reads as follows:--

(3.) The findings recorded by the Tribunal do not suffer from any error of fact, jurisdiction or of law that would invite interference. The revenue was required to hold an independent enquiry against the respondent and only, thereafter, could an order be passed imposing penalty. The fundamental errors pointed out by the Tribunal are sufficient to hold against the revenue. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in the appeal and dismiss the same, in limine.