2014 (4) TMI 649 - AT - Central Excise

Duty demand - Held that - prima facie iron ore in question was transported to the appellant s factory. Inasmuch as there is no entry in the statutory records, it leads to the reasonable conclusion that the same has been utilized in the factory for manufacture of final products which stands cleared without payment of duty. As such, at this stage, we are of the view that the appellant needs to be put to some terms of deposit. We also find that the no plea of financial difficulty has been raised in their stay application and they have not produced any evidence to reflect upon poor financial condition of the appellant - Conditional stay granted.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Additional evidence relating to the existence of M/s. Banke Bihari Enterprises
2. Allegations of clandestine manufacture and clearance of final products
3. Confirmation of demand, interest, and penalty by the Commissioner
4. Stay petition and deposit requirements

Analysis:

Issue 1: Additional evidence - M/s. Banke Bihari Enterprises
The appellant filed a miscellaneous application seeking to present evidence regarding the existence of M/s. Banke Bihari Enterprises. The Revenue alleged that the appellant used the non-existent entity to cover up unauthorized procurement of iron ore. Investigations revealed discrepancies in the documentation, including loading slips with employees' signatures. The appellant argued that the evidence provided by the Revenue was insufficient to confirm the demand.

Issue 2: Clandestine manufacture and clearance
The Revenue initiated proceedings against the appellant for clandestine manufacture and clearance of final products. The Commissioner confirmed the demand, interest, and penalty based on the investigation findings, including discrepancies in electricity consumption and transportation of iron ore to the factory without proper records. The appellant contested these allegations, emphasizing variations in electricity consumption based on iron ore quality.

Issue 3: Confirmation of demand by the Commissioner
The Commissioner confirmed the demand and penalty, citing the absence of evidence against the non-existence of M/s. Banke Bihari Enterprises and discrepancies in documentation and electricity consumption. The appellant challenged these findings, arguing that the Revenue failed to establish a strong case for confirming the demand.

Issue 4: Stay petition and deposit requirements
The Tribunal considered the evidence presented by both sides and found substantial evidence against the appellant regarding the transportation of iron ore to the factory without proper records. Despite no plea of financial difficulty from the appellant, the Tribunal directed a deposit of Rs. 75 lakhs within eight weeks, with the waiver of the balance amount of duty and penalty during the appeal's pendency. The Tribunal scheduled further proceedings to ascertain the matter.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of additional evidence, allegations of clandestine activities, confirmation of demand by the Commissioner, and the stay petition with deposit requirements. The Tribunal found substantial evidence against the appellant, leading to the directive for a deposit while considering the arguments presented by both parties. The case was scheduled for further proceedings to resolve the pending matters comprehensively.