2016 (11) TMI 267 - AT - Central Excise

Demand - Clandestine manufacture - Held that - Department in the present appeal has not brought out any evidence to corroborate clandestine manufacture or clearance of excisable goods. Even if it is considered that high power consumption has not been satisfactorily explained, based on that alone, charge of clandestine manufacture cannot be upheld - Decided in favor of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the order of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal
- Allegations of demanding duty on unaccounted production and clearance of MS ingots
- Excess electricity consumption as the basis for demanding duty
- Lack of evidence for clandestine manufacture and clearance
- Analysis of power consumption pattern
- Examination of experts' views on power consumption
- Conclusion on the sustainability of the demand for duty

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal, regarding the demand for duty on unaccounted production and clearance of MS ingots. The Tribunal had previously remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The Revenue contended that the respondent's electricity consumption exceeded reported levels, leaving no room for other expenses. The demand was primarily based on excess electricity consumption, alleging clandestine manufacture and clearance of dutiable ingots. However, the impugned order highlighted that no discrepancies were found in the stock of raw materials or finished goods, and no direct evidence of clandestine clearance was presented. The order also noted various alternative uses of electricity in the factory premises, indicating legitimate consumption beyond ingot production.

The impugned order extensively analyzed the experts' views on power consumption patterns and rejected the quantification of unit electricity consumption for ingot manufacture provided by the assessee. It further examined the background of power consumption, raw material quantity, and final goods manufactured, ultimately concluding that the demand for duty could not be sustained. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue failed to provide evidence corroborating clandestine manufacture or clearance of excisable goods. Citing legal precedents, including a Supreme Court decision and a Tribunal ruling, the order emphasized that mere high power consumption without additional corroboration was insufficient to uphold charges of clandestine production. Without supporting evidence like raw material purchases or product clearance records, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and dismissed it.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision, pronounced on 30/08/2016, highlighted the importance of corroborative evidence in sustaining charges of clandestine manufacture and clearance. The judgment underscored that excessive power consumption alone was inadequate to establish wrongdoing without additional supporting indicators. By thoroughly analyzing the facts, expert opinions, and legal precedents, the Tribunal determined that the Revenue's appeal lacked merit and upheld the impugned order dropping the demand for duty against the respondent.