2002 (11) TMI 519 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against duty demand and penalty on alleged clandestine production and clearance of Iron and Steel Rerolled products.
- Consideration of evidence on record, including electricity consumption and corroborative evidence.
- Contention regarding the Commissioner (Appeals) not examining all evidence and grounds taken in support of the order-in-original.
- Argument for remand based on the judgment in the case of Triveni Rubber & Plastics v. CCE.
- Dispute over the reliance on power consumption as the sole basis for confirming the demand.
- Question of penalty imposition on Shri Murali under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Appeal against Duty Demand and Penalty:
The case involves two Revenue appeals against the order setting aside the duty demand and penalty on alleged clandestine production and clearance of Iron and Steel Rerolled products. The main contention of the Revenue is that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not adequately consider the evidence on record, including corroborative evidence related to suppression of production, such as electricity consumption and cost of production.

2. Consideration of Evidence and Grounds:
The Revenue argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not thoroughly examine the evidence on record, specifically the corroborative evidence of electricity consumption figures. The Commissioner (Appeals) had observed that the evidence of electricity consumption was inconclusive and not reliable, leading to the Revenue's dissatisfaction with the order.

3. Argument for Remand:
The Revenue sought a remand based on the judgment in the case of Triveni Rubber & Plastics v. CCE, emphasizing the importance of electricity consumption as a factor in confirming demands. The argument was to send the matter back for re-assessment considering the significance of electricity consumption in determining clandestine production and clearance.

4. Dispute over Reliance on Power Consumption:
The Respondents opposed the reliance on power consumption as the sole basis for confirming the demand, highlighting that conclusive evidence of raw material procurement, production, and clearance of final products is essential to establish clandestine removal. The Respondents argued that the Revenue had not substantiated their case solely based on power consumption figures.

5. Penalty Imposition on Shri Murali:
The issue of penalty imposition on Shri Murali under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Act was also raised. The argument was that there was no evidence against Shri Murali for aiding and abetting in the alleged clandestine production and clearance of goods. The Respondents relied on a judgment to support their position that penalty cannot be imposed without concrete evidence.

6. Judgment and Remand Decision:
After reviewing all submissions and evidence, the judge noted the importance of producing conclusive evidence to prove allegations of clandestine removal. The judge highlighted discrepancies in the electricity consumption figures and set aside the previous order, remanding the matter for de novo consideration. The judge emphasized the need for the Revenue to establish the clandestine production and clearance with detailed evidence, including electricity consumption figures. The issue of penalty imposition on Shri Murali was left open for reconsideration by the original authorities. The judge directed a detailed reconsideration of all legal pleas in the de novo proceedings for a fair decision.