2005 (9) TMI 458 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Appeal against OIO confirming demand for duty on Tread Rubber, suppression of production and clearance without payment, expert opinion on production per unit of electricity, duty liability calculation, penalty imposition.

Analysis:
1. The case involves an appeal against the Order-in-Original (OIO) confirming a demand for duty on Tread Rubber due to alleged suppression of production and clearance without payment. The appellant, a manufacturer, was initially served a Show Cause Notice in 1986 for the period from 1981-82 to 1984-85. Subsequent orders and remands by the Tribunal led to the final OIO dated 14-7-2003, confirming a demand of Rs. 1,84,987/- along with a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-.

2. The appellant contended that the Tribunal had remanded the matter to re-adjudicate the production by utilizing electricity consumption as a basis. An expert appointed by the Department determined the production of Tread Rubber per unit of electricity at 0.534 Kg. However, the Commissioner adopted a higher production figure of 0.844 Kg per unit of electricity, leading to the confirmed demand. The appellant argued that the expert's opinion should be accepted, as a lower production figure would significantly reduce the duty liability, rendering the Revenue unable to prove clandestine removal.

3. The Revenue, represented by the JDR, maintained that the production claimed by the appellant was higher and justified using that figure for duty liability calculation. However, the Tribunal noted that when an expert was appointed by the Department to ascertain production, the calculation should have been based solely on the expert's findings. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, the duty payable was limited to Rs. 9,739/- as per the production determined by the expert. The penalty was reduced to Rs. 5,000, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.

4. The Tribunal emphasized that the duty liability should be computed based on the production figure arrived at by the expert, acknowledging the appellant's argument and reducing the duty payable significantly. This decision highlights the importance of expert opinions in determining duty liabilities and ensuring fair adjudication in excise matters.