1997 (8) TMI 335 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 323/BBSR/94 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals)
2. Allegation of removal of clinkers without payment of Central Excise duty
3. Confirmation of demand of duty and imposition of penalty
4. Appeal against the confirmation of duty and penalty
5. Consideration of expert reports and stock adjustments

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 323/BBSR/94 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), where the appellant, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar, challenged the decision allowing the appeal of the respondents engaged in the manufacture of cement clinkers. The respondents were accused of consuming clinkers in the further manufacture of cement without paying the Central Excise duty. The dispute arose from discrepancies in the production records of clinkers maintained by the respondents, leading to a show cause notice alleging the removal of clinkers without duty payment. The demand of duty was confirmed by the Additional Commissioner, along with a penalty, which was later reduced during de novo adjudication. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Additional Commissioner's order, emphasizing the importance of expert reports and stock adjustments made by the respondents.

The Commissioner (Appeals) highlighted the reliance on expert reports from companies like M/s. Andrew Yule & Co. and M/s. Polucon to determine the emission of dust and gas, which led to the detection of a shortage of clinkers. The Commissioner emphasized that the Department failed to consider these expert reports adequately and did not take necessary actions to verify the emission levels. It was noted that there was no evidence of fraud or suppression of facts by the respondents, and the shortage was brought to the Department's attention promptly. The Commissioner rejected the Department's arguments regarding evasion in the cement industry, stating that the evidence provided by the respondents, including expert opinions, supported the over-entry of clinkers in their records based on estimation.

The Department's arguments, presented by Shri S.N. Ghosh, focused on the lack of quantification in the expert reports regarding clinker production and input-output ratios. The Department questioned the validity of the stock verification conducted by the respondents without involving the Central Excise Department, suggesting that the shortage of clinkers was an afterthought. However, the absence of the respondent's representation during the proceedings weakened the Department's contentions. Ultimately, the Commissioner upheld the decision to set aside the Additional Commissioner's order, concluding that the appeal lacked merit and was thus rejected.