2005 (6) TMI 160 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Allegation of suppression of production of cement and clinker based on discrepancies between RG 1 Register and log books.

Summary:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore heard appeals against OIO No. 29/03 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Guntur, alleging suppression of cement production from 1-11-94 to 30-1-96. The duty demand under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was confirmed, along with penalties under Rules 173Q(1) and 226, and confiscation of assets under Rule 173Q(2). Personal penalties were imposed under Rule 209A. Advocates for the appellants argued lack of evidence corroborating the suppression, noting machinery was not operating at full capacity during the period.

Upon review, the Tribunal observed discrepancies between log book and RG 1 figures, raising suspicion of suppressed production. However, without further evidence such as excess power consumption or instances of clandestine sales, the allegations could not be substantiated. Citing a precedent, the Tribunal emphasized that differences in records alone are insufficient to prove clandestine production. Consequently, benefit of doubt was given to the appellants, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief. The impugned order was not upheld due to lack of corroborative evidence supporting the allegations.