1999 (4) TMI 102 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Determination of whether the product manufactured by M/s. Shree Girnar Cement Co. P. Ltd. is Cement chargeable to Central Excise Duty.

Analysis:
1. The central issue in the appeal filed by M/s. Shree Girnar Cement Co. P. Ltd. was to ascertain whether the product they manufactured was indeed Cement subject to Central Excise Duty. The case stemmed from a surprise check conducted by Central Excise Officers, revealing that bags reported to contain Sagol actually contained ordinary portland cement. Subsequently, a significant quantity of cement was seized, and the Collector, Central Excise, imposed penalties and demanded duty payment based on the findings that the product was mislabeled to evade duty payment.

2. The Appellants contended that their product was Sagol, not cement, citing exemption under a specific notification and emphasizing the adherence to I.S.I. specifications for marketing cement. They disputed the test reports and highlighted their bills labeling the goods as Sagol without charging excise duty. However, the absence of the Appellants during hearings and failure to provide evidence challenging the test reports and statements weakened their defense.

3. The arguments put forth by the ld. DR aligned with the Collector's findings, emphasizing the Manager's statement confirming the product as ordinary Portland Cement, lack of evidence challenging the Chemical Examiner's report, and admissions by supervisors regarding the production process. The ld. DR highlighted the penalty imposed by the Collector due to the magnitude of evasion and conscious misrepresentation by the Appellants, supported by various pieces of evidence.

4. Upon reviewing the submissions and evidence, the Tribunal noted the Appellants' failure to substantiate their claim that the product was Sagol, not cement. The Tribunal upheld the Collector's decision based on the evidence presented, concluding that the Appellants had indeed manufactured and removed cement. The lack of contradictory test reports or substantial evidence supporting the Appellants' position led to the rejection of the appeal, affirming the original order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision hinged on the failure of the Appellants to provide compelling evidence to support their claim that the product in question was not cement. The judgment underscored the significance of substantiating claims with concrete evidence in legal proceedings, ultimately resulting in the rejection of the appeal.