2017 (3) TMI 1073 - AT - Central Excise

Shortage of stock - Sponge iron - Held that - the shortage has been ascertained on the basis of eye estimation and no physical verification has been carried out - also, the officers have failed to take into account 250 MT sponge iron, which was not stored in bunkers - the above stock of Sponge iron lying in the factory was not correctly arrived at and hence, demand is not sustainable. Unaccounted production and clearance of 347.60 MT - Held that - demand has been raised only on the basis of these loose sheets. The authenticity of these documents has not been established - Revenue has not bothered to carry out any further investigations to support allegation that the stock of 347.600MT of sponge iron has not been accounted and cleared clandestinely in the absence of any corroborative evidences - The demand raised on this count cannot be sustained. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Alleged shortage of stock of sponge iron
2. Demand of excise duty on unaccounted sponge iron
3. Challenge to the Original Order before the Commissioner (Appeals)

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the alleged shortage of stock of sponge iron at the respondent's factory. The Departmental officers concluded a shortage of 332.315 MT based on a comparison of physical stock and recorded stock. The respondent contested this shortage, arguing that a significant portion of the alleged shortage was due to 250 MT of sponge iron stored outside the bunkers, which was not considered during estimation. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the shortage was not accurately determined through eye estimation and that the unaccounted 250 MT should be considered, leading to a negligible resultant shortage. The Tribunal agreed with this finding and dismissed the appeal by Revenue.

2. Another issue in the case was the demand of excise duty on unaccounted sponge iron allegedly cleared clandestinely. The Department based this demand on loose papers recovered from the laboratory in-charge, indicating unaccounted production and clearances of 347.600 MT of sponge iron. The respondent challenged the authenticity of these documents and argued that no further investigation was conducted to establish their veracity. The Tribunal noted the lack of corroborative evidence and the failure to establish the authenticity of the recovered documents. Consequently, the demand for excise duty on the unaccounted sponge iron was deemed unsustainable, and the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside the demand.

3. The respondent had challenged the Original Order before the Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the entire demand of excise duty. Revenue then filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. During the proceedings, both parties presented their arguments. The Departmental representative contended that the shortage in finished products was correctly estimated with the respondent's concurrence and emphasized the importance of the recovered loose papers. On the other hand, the respondent's advocate highlighted the inadequacy of estimating such large stock through eye estimation and disputed the authenticity and relevance of the recovered documents. The Tribunal considered these arguments and ultimately upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), dismissing the appeal filed by Revenue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by Revenue, affirming the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside the demand for excise duty on the alleged shortage of sponge iron and unaccounted clearances based on recovered documents.