1994 (11) TMI 269 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:

1. Confirmation of duty demand and imposition of penalty.
2. Reliance on lab registers for production records.
3. Arguments against the lab register's credibility.
4. Time-barred demand contention.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Confirmation of Duty Demand and Imposition of Penalty:

The appeal arises from an order confirming a duty demand of Rs. 1,02,878/- on 58.400 MTs of special steel ingots and 14.000 MTs of mild steel ingots manufactured and cleared without payment of duty during specific periods in 1984 and 1985. Additionally, a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs was imposed on the appellants.

2. Reliance on Lab Registers for Production Records:

The Department relied on the lab register to determine the quantity of ingots manufactured and clandestinely cleared. The lab register, maintained by the Lab Chemist, contained details of chemical analyses performed on molten iron for several heats in the induction and arc furnaces. The entries in the lab register indicated that the appellants had manufactured 350 MTs of SS ingots and 84.00 MTs of MS ingots, which were not accounted for in the statutory records. The calculation of production was based on the assumption that each heat of induction furnace produced 0.500 MTs of SS ingots and each heat of arc furnace produced 10.000 MTs of MS ingots.

3. Arguments Against the Lab Register's Credibility:

The appellants contended that the lab register is not a production account and that their factory lacked the facility to perform chemical tests on molten stuff. They argued that there was no production on certain days due to power outages and holidays, and that the officer in charge had inspected and signed the RG-I register on many of those days. They also pointed out that the lab register entries were not contemporaneous records of production but were made later. However, these arguments were rejected by the adjudicating authority, which held that the lab register was a reliable document maintained in the normal course of business.

4. Time-barred Demand Contention:

The appellants argued that the demand was time-barred. However, this argument was rejected due to the finding of suppression of production with the intent to evade payment of duty.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal upheld the reliability of the lab register for calculating the quantum of ingots manufactured and removed surreptitiously. The argument that electricity supply was unavailable on the days mentioned in the lab register was dismissed as an after-thought. The plea that the demand was time-barred was also rejected. The Tribunal confirmed that the appellants had wilfully suppressed production and cleared 292 MTs of special steel ingots and 70 MTs of mild steel ingots without payment of duty. However, the demand of Rs. 15,828/- on 58.400 MTs of special steel ingots and 14.000 MTs of mild steel ingots for October and November 1984 was set aside due to lack of evidence. Consequently, the duty demand was reduced to Rs. 87,050/-, and the penalty was reduced to Rs. 1 lakh. The appeal was rejected subject to these modifications.

← Previous Next →