2005 (11) TMI 162 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Original No. 23/2004 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum
- Allegations of suppression of production and clearance of cement without duty payment
- Remand by Tribunal for re-determination of cement quantity used in in-house building activity
- Non-supply of relied upon documents violating principles of natural justice
- Demand of duty under Section 11(A)(1) of C.E. Act, 1944
- Challenge to findings of adjudicating authority
- Appellants' submissions regarding production and dispatch details, reliance on register, and lack of excess consumption evidence
- Failure to provide relied upon documents like Silo dip register
- Invocation of extended period for duty demand
- Non-determination of normal production by the department
- Discrepancies in Mill Log Sheets and RG 9 register records
- Relevance of case laws cited by appellants

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against an Order-in-Original alleging suppression of production and clearance of cement without duty payment. The Tribunal remanded the matter for re-determination of cement quantity used in in-house building activity and highlighted the non-supply of relied upon documents like the Silo dip register, emphasizing the violation of natural justice principles. The impugned order demanded duty under Section 11(A)(1) of the C.E. Act, 1944, which the appellants strongly contested. The appellants provided detailed submissions regarding production and dispatch details, emphasizing the lack of evidence for excess consumption and challenging the invocation of the extended period for duty demand.

The appellants argued that the department failed to determine normal production and pointed out discrepancies in records like the Mill Log Sheets and RG 9 register. They also cited relevant case laws to support their case. The Tribunal found that the original authority did not consider the appellants' submissions adequately, leading to a lack of justification for the duty demand. The failure to provide the Silo dip register and the non-application of mind by the Commissioner were noted as gross violations of natural justice.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that there was no strong case of excess production or clandestine clearance by the Revenue. The appellants' data demonstrated payment of duty on cement used in in-house construction, and their regular filing of returns indicated no suppression of facts. Considering the relevant case laws and the lack of evidence supporting the duty demand, the Tribunal set aside the duty demand, penalty, and interest, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.