2017 (9) TMI 443 - AT - Central Excise

Authenticity of records - whether figures available in the record of the supplier of NABB are more authentic as compared to the figures reported in RT-12 returns submitted to the Jurisdictional Range Superintendent? - Held that - The responsibility of the Jurisdictional Range Superintendent was to assess the goods to Central Excise Duty and issue the assessment memorandum in respect of each RT-12. In those circumstances, it is not sustainable to hold that the appellants under reported the figures in the returns filed before the Range Superintendent and, therefore, the figures of the production available on the record of the supplier of NABB cannot be more authentic than the figures reflected in Statutory record like RG-1 and reported in Statutory returns like RT-12 - Revenue could not produce any evidence of procurement of all the raw materials for manufacture of the alleged quantity, clearance of alleged quantity, transportation of the same and receipt of monetary transactions of the same - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Common issue: Reliability of sales figures reported to the supplier of concentrate compared to Central Excise records for Aerated Drinks from 1988 to 1993.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Common Issue Analysis:
The appeals involved a common issue regarding the reliability of sales figures reported by manufacturers of Aerated Soft Drinks to the supplier of concentrate compared to the Central Excise records maintained. The Central Excise Officers conducted investigations and alleged underreporting by the appellants based on discrepancies between the figures reported to the supplier and those in the Central Excise records. Show cause notices were issued demanding differential Central Excise Duty from the appellants for the period from 1988 to 1993.

2. Original Authority's Decision:
The Original Authority confirmed the demands raised in the show cause notices, rejecting the appellants' arguments that figures reported to the supplier could not be the basis for determining the quantity of goods manufactured. Penalties were also imposed on individuals associated with the companies.

3. Tribunal's Decision:
After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal considered whether the figures reported to the supplier were more authentic than those in the Central Excise records. The Tribunal found that the show cause notices were presumptive in nature as there was no concrete evidence presented by the Revenue regarding raw material procurement, manufacturing, transportation, and financial transactions. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside all the impugned Orders-in-Original and allowed all the appeals, granting the appellants consequential relief as per law.

4. Legal Precedents and Arguments:
The learned counsel for the appellants cited legal precedents and argued that the demands based on presumptions without substantial evidence were unsustainable. They highlighted cases where demands based solely on theoretical ratios were not upheld by the Tribunal, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence to support duty demands.

5. Conclusion:
The Tribunal's decision emphasized the importance of concrete evidence in tax assessments and rejected presumptive demands without substantial proof. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellants, setting aside the demands and penalties imposed by the Original Authority, providing relief to the appellants in accordance with the law.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved, the decisions of the Original Authority and the Tribunal, legal arguments presented, and the final conclusion reached in the judgment.