2009 (2) TMI 632 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - Evidence - There is allegation that electricity consumption is highly disproportionate to the production recorded

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order upholding duty demand and penalty imposition based on alleged disproportionate electricity consumption for M.S. Ingots production.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against an order by the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding duty demand and penalty imposition due to alleged disproportionate electricity consumption for M.S. Ingots production. The officers based their findings on data from the Mobile Meter Testing Squad of the Punjab State Electricity Board, indicating excessive electricity usage compared to the accounted production of ingots. The original authority calculated a suppressed quantity of production, leading to duty demand and penalty imposition, a decision upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

The appellant, a manufacturer of M.S. Ingots, argued that no discrepancies were found in the stock of raw material scrap, procurement of scrap, labor usage, other raw materials, or finished goods. They attributed the high electricity consumption to the use of air-conditioners and other appliances during the summer period. The appellant contested the allegations, pointing out the lack of evidence supporting the claim of excess electricity usage, as the Department did not provide meter readings to substantiate their findings.

Upon careful consideration of the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal noted the lack of substantial evidence beyond the alleged disproportionate electricity consumption to prove unaccounted production and clandestine removal of steel ingots. The statement from the Authorised Signatory only mentioned the time required for a specific process, without additional investigations or evidence on the relevant issues. The appellant's defense highlighted various factors affecting production, such as raw materials, labor, machinery breakdowns, and electricity supply disruptions, casting doubt on the accuracy of the recorded production quantity.

Given the serious nature of the charges of suppression of production and clandestine removal, the Tribunal found insufficient grounds to uphold the decision of the lower authorities. The lack of concrete evidence supporting the excessive electricity consumption claim, along with the appellant's rebuttal and absence of other indications of production suppression, led the Tribunal to set aside the previous orders and allow the appeal with consequential relief. The judgment was delivered on 17-2-2009.