1984 (3) TMI 72 - SC - Central Excise

Rate of duty of excise for the purpose of assessment - Held that - Looking to the statement of power consumption of M/s. P.G. Orcham and comparing this with the production of the appellants there appears to be no justification for drawing an inference that during the period May 1979 to November 1980 the power shown to have been consumed by M/s. P.G. Orcham was in fact utilised by the appellants for manufacture of metal containers. A perusal of the chart showing production shows that in some months like December 1979 when the power consumption is shown to be zero the production was highest and on a perusal of the statement of production when compared with the power bill it is difficult to see how this power consumption can be correlated with production of metal containers. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue also could not justify why this period from May 1979 to November 1980 was treated as a distinctive period and how the consumption of power shown in various months during this period could be correlated with production. It is in the circumstances impossible to draw an inference that during this period power was used by the appellants for manufacture of metal containers. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 against the Order in Appeal No. 215/1984-D dated 12th April, 1984.
- Question of the rate of duty of excise for the purpose of assessment.
- Allegation of manufacturing metal containers with the aid of power.
- Imposition of fine, penalty, and duty by the Collector, Central Excise.
- Rejection of appeal by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal.
- Rejection of special civil application by the High Court of Gujarat.
- Interpretation of Tariff Notification No. 94 of 1970 regarding exemption from duty for manufacturing without the aid of power.
- Analysis of power consumption data to determine if power was used for manufacturing metal containers.

Analysis:
- The appellants, a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing metal containers, switched to manufacturing without power to avail exemption under Tariff Notification No. 94 of 1970.
- Issue arose when an electric motor was temporarily fitted to a jammed machine, leading to the Central Excise Department suspecting power usage in manufacturing.
- Collector imposed a fine, penalty, and duty after an enquiry, which was upheld by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, leading to the appellants' appeal to the Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court analyzed power consumption data and found discrepancies in correlating power usage with production, concluding that power was not used for manufacturing metal containers during the disputed period.
- The Court emphasized the importance of evidence and justification in drawing inferences regarding power usage for manufacturing to determine eligibility for duty exemption.
- Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, and the orders of the Tribunal and the Collector were set aside, with no costs imposed on either party.