2012 (7) TMI 416 - AT - Central Excise

Justification to levy Excise Duty - Held that - Excise duty is chargeable on any excisable goods if it is established that the assessee has manufactured and cleared the excisable goods, whereas no evidence is find to show that the amount of Rs.27,79,146 which the basis of demand, was received by the respondent against the clearance of the goods manufactured as assessee admittedly explained the receipt of aforesaid amount as advance for development/purchasing tools as per specification of the customer - order in original confirming demand is without any basis is set aside - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to Commissioner (Appeals) order regarding excise duty levy.
2. Interpretation of Sections 3 and 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Justification for raising adverse assumption on received amount.
4. Admissibility of explanation for the received amount.
5. Lack of evidence for goods clearance against received amount.

Analysis:

1. The appellant challenged the Commissioner (Appeals) order on the grounds of failure to appreciate the received amount and the justification for raising an adverse assumption. The appellant argued that the received amount was against the sale of goods manufactured. However, the Tribunal found no merit in this contention.

2. Sections 3 and 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were crucial in this case. Section 3 deals with the levy of excise duty on excisable goods produced or manufactured in India. Section 4 pertains to the valuation of excisable goods for charging duty of excise. The Tribunal emphasized that excise duty is only chargeable if it is established that the assessee has manufactured and cleared the excisable goods.

3. The appellant contended that the received amount was for the sale of goods manufactured. However, the Tribunal noted that there was no evidence to support this claim. The appellant failed to demonstrate that the amount was received against the clearance of manufactured goods, as required for excise duty levy.

4. The appellant explained the received amount as an advance for development/purchasing tools as per customer specifications. Despite this explanation, no departmental inquiry was conducted to verify its accuracy. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of verifying explanations to ensure the correctness of assumptions made regarding the received amount.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the order confirming the demand lacked a basis. The Commissioner (Appeals) was deemed correct in setting aside the order. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision that the demand for excise duty was not sustainable due to the absence of evidence linking the received amount to the clearance of manufactured goods.