2005 (7) TMI 510 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Alleged clandestine removal of tread rubber and pre-cured rubber without duty payment
- Allegation of excess production and shortage of raw materials
- Confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties imposed
- Challenge by both assessee and Revenue on various aspects of the order

Analysis:
1. Alleged Clandestine Removal:
The appeal involved charges of clandestine removal of tread rubber and pre-cured rubber without duty payment. The Commissioner confirmed the demand for Rs. 1,50,548/- based on alleged excess production and shortage of raw materials. The assessee challenged this confirmation, arguing that the evidence presented was insufficient to support the allegations. The Revenue, on the other hand, challenged the dropping of demands amounting to Rs. 3,22,025/-. The Tribunal noted that mere consumption of sulphur was not enough to prove clandestine removal and upheld the Commissioner's decision to drop the demand of Rs. 3,22,025/- due to lack of evidence supporting the allegations of clandestine removal.

2. Excess Production and Raw Material Shortage:
The Commissioner had found that for the manufacture of pre-cured rubber, the assessee needed to procure raw rubber and carbon black, which the Revenue failed to provide evidence of procurement for. The Tribunal agreed that there was no evidence of excess consumption of electricity or procurement of necessary raw materials, such as raw rubber and carbon black. The appellants explained that the excess produced tread rubber and strips were received as replacements, providing evidence to support their claim. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the confirmation of the demand of Rs. 1,50,548/- and the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 173Q.

3. Penalties and Confiscation:
The Commissioner had confirmed the confiscation and imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 10,000/-, along with penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q. The assessee contested these penalties, arguing that the evidence presented was not sufficient to justify the penalties imposed. The Tribunal, after careful consideration, found that the evidence of clandestine removal was lacking, and therefore, the penalties and confiscation were not justified. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner's decision to drop the demands and setting aside the penalties imposed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, setting aside the demands and penalties due to insufficient evidence supporting the allegations of clandestine removal and shortage of raw materials. The judgment emphasized the importance of providing concrete evidence to substantiate claims of duty evasion and upheld the principle that mere consumption of one raw material was not enough to prove clandestine activities.