2016 (9) TMI 80 - AT - Central Excise

Demand - clandestine manufacture and removal of plywood without payment of duty during the period 1998-99, 1999-2000 - non-accountal of basic raw materials for manufacture of plywood, namely the face veneers and the core veneers - Held that - in the assessee s own case for different period on the show cause notice issued on very same allegation, the Tribunal after analysing the facts, evidence and law in detail has held the issue in favor of assessee - Therefore by following the decision laid in the assessee s own case, we are of the view that the demand is not sustainable. The impugned order is set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty demand on unaccounted plywood production.
2. Validity of assumptions made by the department regarding input-output ratio for plywood production.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a small-scale unit manufacturing plywood facing duty demand of ?34,03,458 for allegedly clandestine production and removal without payment during 1998-2000. The appellants utilized Modvat facility on inputs and were directed to maintain raw material accounts. After multiple adjudications, duty of ?12,68,173 was confirmed, leading to an appeal before the Tribunal challenging the demand.

2. The department's case relied on the assumption that 2 sq.mtr of face veneer is needed to manufacture 1 sq.mt of plywood, without prescribed norms for consumption. The appellant argued against this assumption, highlighting industry variability in input-output ratios and the use of face veneers interchangeably with core veneers. Citing legal precedents, the appellant contended the department's estimation method was illegal and unscientific, failing to consider other raw materials like phenol and formalin essential for plywood production.

3. The department maintained that the demand was justified due to non-accountal of basic raw materials, face, and core veneers, essential for plywood manufacturing. While the appellant accounted for these materials in the purchase day book, discrepancies were found in the Form IV excise register, leading to underreporting. The department argued for a logical input-output ratio of 2 face veneers for plywood production, holding the appellant responsible for explaining any deviations from this ratio satisfactorily.

4. The Tribunal, after considering both parties' arguments, referred to a previous order in the appellant's favor on similar allegations. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of substantial evidence beyond an accountant's statement to support the department's assumptions. Emphasizing the absence of verification, proof of clandestine activities, or excess material consumption, the Tribunal found the demand unsustainable and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential reliefs.