2024 (2) TMI 1185 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - all the issue related to question of fact - Clandestine removal - Whether CESTAT has erred in not appreciating the suppression of production arisen on calculating annual electricity consumption which shows that there was excess production of excisable goods as compared to the productions reflected in their statutory records? HELD THAT - All the questions which the appellant has raised in the present appeal, are essentially questions of fact and there is no question of law as such which is required to be adjudicated by this Court. Taking into consideration the concurrent findings of fact, this appeal need not be entertained. The appeal stands dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues in this case involve questions regarding the suppression of production based on electricity consumption, the validity of electricity consumption as evidence for clandestine manufacture, the significance of authorized signatory persons' statements, the evidence supporting less recording of production, and the legality of the order passed by the CESTAT.

Suppression of production based on electricity consumption:
The appellant questioned the CESTAT's failure to appreciate the suppression of production based on annual electricity consumption, indicating excess production of excisable goods compared to statutory records. The Court found that the Commissioner examined the issues and concluded that the claim and demand by the Revenue were unfounded. The CESTAT confirmed the Commissioner's findings that there was a significant variation in power consumption per unit of production, and the Revenue failed to provide concrete evidence to refute these facts.

Validity of electricity consumption as evidence for clandestine manufacture:
The appellant raised concerns about whether electricity consumption could be considered valid evidence to determine clandestine manufacture. The Court upheld the Commissioner's conclusion that the goods were entered in production records only after quality inspection and clearance, explaining the non-recording of production on national/public holidays. It was found that the approach adopted by the respondent in recording production after quality control checks was reasonable and in agreement with the Commissioner's findings.

Significance of authorized signatory persons' statements:
The appellant questioned the decision to ignore facts decoded by the authorized signatory persons of the Respondent, who mentioned they were not well-versed in the day-to-day working of the factory. The Court found that the Commissioner carefully analyzed and compared production data in statutory returns/records and private records, concluding that the production declared in statutory returns was higher than that in private records. The issue of CENVAT Credit admissibility was also addressed, emphasizing the importance of duty paid inputs receipt for credit eligibility.

Evidence supporting less recording of production:
The appellant sought clarification on whether positive evidence, including voluntary admitted statements and corroborative private records, substantiated the claim of less recording of production. The Court found that the Commissioner's analysis of production data and comparison of statutory and private records supported the respondent's explanation for discrepancies, leading to a favorable decision for the respondents.

Legality of the CESTAT's order:
The appellant contested the legality of the CESTAT's order, alleging it was perverse, illegal, and unjust. The Court, based on the concurrent findings of fact, determined that the questions raised were essentially factual and did not require adjudication as questions of law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of.