2007 (6) TMI 110 - AT - Central Excise

Demand and penalty -Revenue contended that assessee had purchased raw materials and manufactured final products and cleared the same without payment of duty - Held that revenue contention was not sustainable and set aside demand and penalty amount

Summary

Issues:
1. Allegation of clandestine removal of clinker
2. Proper maintenance of accounts and shortage of raw material
3. Duty demand on shortage of clinker
4. Modvat credit denial and procedural lapses
5. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 167/2004(G)C.E.

Issue 1: Allegation of clandestine removal of clinker
The Revenue challenged Order-in-Appeal No. 167/2004(G)C.E., alleging clandestine removal of 204.270 MTs of clinker. The Commissioner (A) found the allegation baseless and unsustainable, citing improper maintenance of accounts and raw material shortage due to accumulated rejects and waste. The Commissioner accepted the appellants' explanation that the clinker shortage was due to unusable waste material stored separately. The physical availability of the waste quantity in the factory premises was acknowledged, and the shortage was estimated without actual weighment, leading to the acceptance of the appellants' contention. As the duty-paid clinker was not used in cement manufacture and no Modvat credit was availed due to SSI exemption, the demand for excise duty on the alleged shortage was deemed unsustainable.

Issue 2: Proper maintenance of accounts and shortage of raw material
The appellants' case involved the non-accountal of 42.340 MTs of clinker received before availing Modvat credit facility under SSI exemption. The shortage of clinker noticed by excise officers was linked to this quantity, which was part of the total shortage. The Commissioner noted that the clinker used in cement manufacture before 4-1-98 under SSI exemption was a procedural lapse, not exceeding the exemption limit. Regarding the closing balance of 128.700 MTs on record, the appellants explained its utilization post opting for excise duty payment. However, the failure to show this quantity as opening balance in new records was deemed a procedural lapse. The denial of Modvat credit on the closing stock by the Superintendent resulted in the appellants paying duty on non-modvated input, causing a double loss.

Issue 3: Duty demand on shortage of clinker
The demand for duty on the alleged 204.270 MTs of clinker was based on presumptions, lacking sustenance as per the Commissioner's findings. Since the demand was deemed unsustainable, the penalties imposed and interest demandable were also invalidated. The absence of evidence showing non-payment of duty on manufactured products without raising invoices weakened the Revenue's case, leading to the appeal's allowance and the impugned order's setting aside.

Issue 4: Modvat credit denial and procedural lapses
The denial of Modvat credit on the closing stock of clinker and the subsequent duty payment on cement manufactured from it highlighted the appellants' deprivation of credit benefits due to procedural lapses and Superintendent's actions. The Commissioner's detailed examination concluded that there was no clandestine manufacture or non-removal without duty payment, upholding the legality and correctness of the Order-in-Appeal. The rejection of the Revenue's appeal affirmed the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the absence of merit in challenging the findings.