1995 (4) TMI 187 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Dispensation of pre-deposit of duty and penalty based on private records maintained by the appellants.

Analysis:
The appellants sought dispensation of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.18,74,115 and a penalty of Rs. 2.00 lakhs demanded in terms of the impugned order. The appellants manufacture Sulphamethaxazole using various inputs, recovering solvents and generating effluents during the process. The demand was based on private records maintained by the appellants, detailing the effluents and solvents, including sale particulars for some consignments. The appellants argued that goods without sale particulars were not sold, and no evidence proved otherwise. The lower authority presumed sale based on some entries, overlooking that some effluents were not marketable. The appellants provided flow charts and private records, disputing the duty demand. The lower authority's findings lacked reasoning and rejected statements from consignees indicating effluents were not sold. The duty demand was based on presumption, leading to the plea for dispensation of pre-deposit.

Analysis Continued:
After hearing both parties, it was decided to decide the appeal on the point of dispensing with pre-deposit of duty and penalty. The learned DR argued that the lower authority's reasons for demanding duty were valid, despite not discussing all evidence. The duty demand was based on appellants' private records showing production, consignees, and sale amounts. Some consignees confirmed goods were let out as effluents, but the lower authority did not explain why these statements were rejected. The lower authority failed to consider the movement records and evidence from transport personnel. The manufacturing process should have been analyzed to determine the nature of the bye-products and effluents. The lower authority's observation regarding the solvent being a weak organic compound indicated prima facie spent solvent nature. A detailed analysis of the chemical process and actual use of materials was necessary. Consequently, the lower authority's order was deemed improper, and the matter was remanded for reevaluation.

Conclusion:
The appellate tribunal remanded the matter to the lower authority for de novo consideration, allowing the appeal by setting aside the lower authority's order. The appellants were granted an opportunity for a hearing based on the observations made during the analysis of the manufacturing process and the nature of the bye-products and effluents.