2015 (10) TMI 695 - HC - Central Excise

Duty demand - high electricity consumption - undisclosed entries and production - Held that - It does not appear that any ground was taken by the appellant that even otherwise there was independent material available with it to prima facie conclude higher undisclosed production for the period excluding 1-1-1999 to 16-2-1999. Furthermore, the Tribunal has relied upon another order passed by it in M/s. R.A. Castings 2010 (9) TMI 669 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT affirmed by the Allahabad High Court and the appeal before the Supreme Court against it dismissed 2011 (1) TMI 1302 - Supreme Court of India to hold that demand of duty based only on electricity consumption could not be upheld - pleadings in the memo of appeal are completely silent with regard to the findings in law by three forums to distinguish how they are inapplicable. Even the order passed in the case of M/s. R.A. Castings, has not been brought on record, much less any distinction pleaded. - No substantial question of law arise - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Appellate Tribunal's decision on demand of duty and penalty based on high electricity consumption; Remand to Original Authority for quantifying duty liability for a specific period; Appellant's contention for re-examination of demand for entire period; Appellant's argument for independent material for higher undisclosed production; Tribunal's reliance on previous order; Appellant's failure to distinguish findings in law by three forums; Applicability of Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The High Court dealt with appeals concerning the demand of duty and penalty, focusing on high electricity consumption. The Appellate Tribunal had declined to uphold the demand for a certain period but allowed imposition for undisclosed entries and production admitted by the respondent from 1-1-1999 to 16-2-1999. The matter was remanded to the Original Authority for quantifying the duty liability specifically for the admitted period. The appellant argued for a broader re-examination beyond the specified period, claiming there was adequate material for determining liability for the entire period, excluding 1-1-1999 to 16-2-1999.

The Court considered the submissions and observed that the appellant's contentions primarily addressed the period from 1-1-1999 to 16-2-1999, without asserting independent evidence for undisclosed production beyond that timeframe. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by a previous order in the case of M/s. R.A. Castings, upheld by the Allahabad High Court and dismissed by the Supreme Court, emphasizing that duty demands solely based on electricity consumption were not sustainable.

It was noted that the memo of appeal lacked any discussion on how the legal findings of the three forums differed and failed to address the relevance of the M/s. R.A. Castings order. The Court referenced Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which allows appeals to the High Court for substantial questions of law. However, after thorough review, the Court concluded that the present appeals did not involve any substantial legal questions, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.