VK THEHIGH COURT OF .; • ,.,;nn i'':S.3~!;»| l|\B^i^^ ^^.^^1 JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR FCHHATTISGARH1 TAX CASE N0. OF SOOJ-'^eB APt'ELLANT y^: •••"'., fHWf^ UN-ION OF INDIA ^THROUGH COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE BHAWAN, DHAMTARI ROAD, TIKARAPARA, RAIPUR (C.G.) 492-001 Versus RESPONDENT ^MTS NOVA IRON & STEEL LTD, VILLAGE + POST - DAGORI, ^€1-"^EHSI1-- BELHA <?\^A^ DISTT-BILASPUR(C.G.) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 35-G OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT. 1944 : .;.-5E?!?.%^n -c"^ >'^ --!-i!SS'\ <a \I^M^^^>( ^ % . y s '%s^^ A^ 't^ 'BBSES^ ^ HIGH COIJRT OF CHHATnSOARH AT BH.ASPIJR TAXCA8ENo.02rf200S APPELLANT RESPONDENT VRR8IJS M/s. Nova Iran & Steel Ltd. APPRALIJNDBRSRCTTON 35-0 OF rmR CRmKAI, F^CISR ACT, 1944 DB: Hon'Me Shri Satish K. Asnahutri & Hon'Me Shri Radhe Shyam Shanna, .T.1. Present: Shri Bhisma Kinger, Advocate fbrthe appeliant. ihri Sanjay K. Agrawal wilh Shri AsliiA Shrivaslava, Advocates forthe respondent. ORBKRtQRAD (Passed on 30th day ofAugist, 201 1) ishK. 1. This instant appeal is fited undw section 35-G Exoise Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act, 1944'). admitted for hearing on the foUowiag subrtantial aiyeal was oflaw: "1(A) Whether the method adopted for calciriatiat impugiied quantity was corred aad adiiiissible under the law? (B) Whefliw tfae Tribimal was not justified in setlmg aside the confisualion urder only on ihe ground that the qiiaatity was arrived on estimafion basis? 2) Whether the Panchnama prepared and signed by respoadeat regai'ditig difference of stock and tiot demaDdmg any re-vaifioation af it amoimts to adnassion ofils uanlenls?" The brief facts, as projected by tfae appellant are that the respondent is engaged in manufacture of sponge iron faBing imder chapter 72 ofthe Central Excise TariflFAct, 1985. Avarification of stook of sponge iron was done on 16/17.10.2003. ITie aiwellait ascertained 672 MT of sponge iron ia tfae Sflo on the basis of dip reading of 13 meters empty plus 360.108 iMT (rfsponge iron in the packaging shed packed in 8574 ba^, takiag average weight of 4 KCxs of each bag, plus loose stock of 165 MTs in Ifae packaging shed on the basis of estiination, total 1197.108 MTs of sponge iron ia the factory. The stock was compared with the reeorded balanw of 1063.415 MTs as per the respondent'8 daily stock accoimt and concluded that there was an excess unaecounted stock of 133.693 MTs of Bponge iron in the factory whieh wa.s seized imder Panchnama dated 17.10.2003 and the stssws goods wer@ eoafiscated. A show cause notice was issiied oa 04.03.2004 (Aanesaire A/2). Reply to the same was filed by fhe respoadent The Assistant Commissioner, Central Escise Division, Bilaspiir, after having considered all the facts, vide order (teted 31.03.2005 (Annexiire A/3), carae to the conclusion that tfae vatue of confiscated seized sponge iroa (hunps) wei^iing 133.693 MT vahied at Rs. 9.62.590/- under Rule 25 ofthe Central Excise B-ules, 2002 (for short 'the Rwles, 2002'). An option was given to redeem the same on oavmeat of redemption fine of Rs. 1 lac wifltin three mcnths from the date ofreeeipt of the order and fi»rtherpenalty of Rs. 10.000/- was imposed on the party fw eoHtaveHtion of Rule 10oftheRules,2002. 3. Thereagamst, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Central Excise & Custotns (Appeals-I), Raipur. The Commissioner (Appeals-I), by ardw dated 28.07.2005 (Annexiire A/4) held that the qiiantity of spoage iron foiiad in the stcel factorv was on the estimation basis aad as soch, the confiscation ofeoods were not liable for confiscation. 3 . 4. Fiirther, an appeal was preferred by Ihe a^»eBant befwe the Custoins, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribimal') , New Delhi in Excise Appeal Na 3433 of 2005- 8M(BR). The Tribiiaal, by order dated 21.W.2007, held that the Revenue in appeat anly contested that dip metiiod is right metfaod far measiiremeiit in the eoods stored in th®sil®.The Tribunal found that the sponee iroa was stwed m silo as wefl as well as in ba^. B was ferther found that some qiiaatity of 156 Mts was amved at on estimatioa basis which v/as Ivine in loose fonn ia a shed. In these circ'umstances, as tfae total quantity of the sponge iron found in the factory was arrived at after tidcing mto consideration on estimation basia, thiis, no itriirmitv was fouad in the order passed by the C-ommissioner (Appeals), who had set aside the confiscation. The Tribunal conciirred with the findings recorded by the ComnMssioner (Appeals) and dismissed flie sypeal filed bythe Revenue. 5, In case, where tfaere i.s no dispute wtth re^ird to findings, it is well settlsd propcsition of law in tenns of sectioti 35-G of the Ast, 1944, thatthe Hi^i Court can eirtertaia aa appesd wily ifa qaestion oflaw arises, 6. The Supreme Court, m Metroark Ltd. v. Co»»nissionern Excise, Cakutta^, held as under: "8. Even otherwise, fhe law an the subiect is dear. The Tribunal is ihe fiiia! fal-Iinding aii&ority. Uiriess it is diown that thwe is something perviarse m ils iinding, tfus Court (2004)128cc505 4 woiild not iaterfere. No autfaority is required Ibr this purpose. Bul as a large BlunbiiT uf autiiorities are oited, we refer to than: Pragati Cowputers (P) Ltd. v. Collwtor ofCustom/, Reliame Silicon (I) (P) Ltd. v. CCE3, Asian Paints India Ltd. v. CCE^ aad Collector of Customs v. Svwstic Woollens (P) Ltd. 7. In Chandana Impsc Private Limited v. Commissionsr ofCustoms, NewDelhf, the Supreme Court, held as under: "13. As stated above, thc appeUaut had framed in their appeal before ihe High Court, as many as seven questions as sutetantial qiiestions of law. II is manifesl Jrom a bare readmg of flie six questions viz. (b) to (g), repeated in this appeal, that none ofthe questions can be said to be a subgtantial question of law, ia asmuch as lliey do nol proueed on tbe premise that (he decision of the Tribuaal on the issues raised thwein is perverse, ia tfae sease that tha fiaditigs offact, amved at by the Tribuaal are not based on fhe material placed before it or thai the relssvanl maierial has been ignored by it. It is trito law that a finding offact may give rise lo a substaiitial queslion uf!aw, inler alia, ia fhe event the finding are based on ao evidenee aad/'or wmle amviag •t tfae said finding, relevaat admissible widence hiw not been taken into consideration or madmi^ible evidence has been teken into exMMideration or legal principles have not been applied in appreciating tfie evidence, or wben the evidence has been misread. (Ref.'.lV.B. Elvatriciiy Regulatory Commission v. CESC Ltd7., Metroark Ltd. v, CCE9, Commr. of Customs v. Vijay Dasharath Patel Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi v. Vidyarthi"hf We have perused the orders passed by the authoritias below as well w bv the Tribunal. We have not fouad anv iafiimity or ywvasifv ^(2000) 10 SCC 150 3 (1997)1 SCC215 4(199812SCC470 5(1998)SuppSCC796 6 (2011)73cc 288 1(2002) 8 SCC 715 S(2004)12SCC505 .(2007) 4S;C 118 10 (2009) 3 SCC 287 r (:• ^ in the recordine of anv findin®of fact. Thns, in view ®fthe foregoing, no substantial question of law arises wfaea admittedly, there is no perversity or infimuty inthe findin^ offacte. 9» Thus, Ifae appeal is dismissed on the youiri fluit it does aot raise anv substantial auestion of law for deoision in the facts ofthe case bvtliisCourt. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sd'- Radhe Shyam Sharma Judge Amit