2018 (3) TMI 760 - AT - Central Excise

Clandestine manufacture and removal - Whether the appellants are liable to pay duty according to the electricity power consumed in the manufacture of MS Bars, MS Angles etc? - Held that - except the statements of the partners/directors, there is no other evidence and for this reason the Commissioner has dropped the proceedings - the finding of the Commissioner is agrred which says that much more evidence is required to establish the clandestine manufacture and removal of the finished goods. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner Versus RA. Castings Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (1) TMI 1302 - Supreme Court of India has held that the demand only on the basis of electricity consumption cannot be confirmed in absence of any other corroborative evidence. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Determining liability to pay duty based on electricity power consumed in manufacturing MS Bars and MS Angles.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the question of whether the appellants were liable to pay duty based on the electricity power consumed in the manufacture of MS Bars, MS Angles, etc. The show-cause notices were issued proposing a demand of duty on the grounds that the appellants had consumed more electricity power than required for manufacturing finished goods, leading to the clearance of goods without payment of duty. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings of the show-cause notice, stating that the statements of partners/directors regarding average electricity consumption per metric ton of finished goods were not sufficient evidence to prove charges of clandestine production and removal.

2. The Revenue filed an appeal against the dropping of the demand, arguing that the average electricity consumption per metric ton of production of finished goods, as admitted by the partners/directors, was enough evidence to support the demand proposed in the show-cause notices. However, the respondents' counsels contended that the partners/directors were not technical experts to provide accurate electricity consumption data, and no investigation by technical experts was conducted to determine the actual electricity consumption. They cited various Tribunal judgments to support their argument.

3. The Commissioner's order dropping the proceedings was based solely on the partners/directors' statements, highlighting the lack of additional evidence to establish clandestine manufacture and removal of finished goods. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner's finding that more evidence was necessary to prove the charges. Referring to a previous case involving Anand Steel Re-rolling Mill, where the demand based on electricity consumption was not confirmed due to inconsistencies in production calculations, the Tribunal emphasized the need for concrete evidence beyond electricity consumption data.

4. The Tribunal also referenced judgments such as R.A. Castings Pvt. Ltd. and SRJ Peety Steel Pvt. Ltd., where it was established that demands based solely on variations in electricity consumption without corroborative evidence were not valid. Upholding the principles laid out in these judgments, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, emphasizing the necessity of concrete evidence to support duty demands based on electricity consumption data.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of concrete evidence beyond statements of partners/directors and electricity consumption data to establish charges of clandestine production and removal, as supported by relevant legal precedents.