2010 (8) TMI 920 - HC - Central Excise

Clandestine manufacture and removal - consumption of excess electricity - Whether the kind of excessive quantum of electricity consumed can be linked to production and no further corroboration is required? - Held that - only material on the basis of which demand was raised was alleged disproportionate consumption of electricity which could be for various reasons and not necessarily for more production. Inference sought to be drawn that there was more production, was not justified - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Excessive quantum of electricity consumption linked to production without further corroboration.
2. Tribunal's findings being perceived as perverse.
3. Lack of corroborative evidence despite doubts on electricity consumption and production correlation.

Issue 1: Excessive quantum of electricity consumption linked to production without further corroboration
The appeal under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was filed by the revenue against an order alleging disproportionate consumption of electricity by the respondent, a manufacturer of MS Ingots. The Tribunal set aside the demand, emphasizing that no other evidence supported the alleged unaccounted production and clandestine removal. The Tribunal highlighted that the excessive electricity consumption did not automatically imply increased production, as factors like raw material, labor, machinery breakdown, and electricity supply could affect production levels. The appellant disputed the excess electricity usage, stating that no meter readings were relied upon to substantiate the claim. The Tribunal held that the charge of suppression of production and clandestine removal could not be upheld solely based on alleged excessive electricity usage, especially when contested by the appellant. The Tribunal's finding indicated that further investigation was necessary to establish the correlation between electricity consumption and production.

Issue 2: Tribunal's findings being perceived as perverse
The High Court observed that the Tribunal's decision was based solely on the alleged disproportionate electricity consumption without additional evidence to support the claim of increased production. The Court agreed with the Tribunal that the revenue department had the option to conduct further investigations to gather material substantiating the allegations of higher production and clandestine removal. The Court found that the inference drawn by the Tribunal, suggesting increased production based on electricity consumption, was not justified. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the finding was not perverse given the circumstances and the lack of additional evidence supporting the revenue's claims.

Issue 3: Lack of corroborative evidence despite doubts on electricity consumption and production correlation
The High Court dismissed the appeal, concluding that no substantial question of law arose from the case. The Court reiterated that the Tribunal's finding, which focused on the disproportionate electricity consumption as the sole basis for the demand, was not sufficient to prove increased production or clandestine removal. The Court emphasized that the revenue department could have conducted further investigations to gather corroborative evidence supporting their claims. The Court highlighted that the mere alleged excessive electricity usage, contested by the appellant, was not adequate to establish suppression of production and clandestine removal without additional evidence. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision and emphasized the need for thorough investigations to substantiate allegations of misconduct in production processes.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues raised in the appeal, highlighting the importance of corroborative evidence and thorough investigations in cases involving allegations of clandestine activities and disproportionate consumption of resources.