9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 743X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ic Excise Duty and Rs. 1,68,424.10 as Special Excise Duty (totaling to Rs. 35,36,906.10) for alleged clandestine removal of quantity of 889.90MT of trade rubber. The relevant period is from August 1980 to July 1985. ii. Duty demand was revised by a corrigendum to Rs. 49,34,330/- towards Excise duty and Rs. 2,46,718.50 towards Special Excise duty (totaling to Rs. 51,81,048.50). iii. Initially Order-in-Original No.85/87 dt. 20/06/1987 confirmed above duty demand. Against this Order-in-Original, appeal was filed before the Tribunal, who vide Final Order 595-598/1995 dt. 27/10/1995 remanded the matter to the original authority. iv. Department did not take up the case for de novo adjudication for five years. Thereafter, on 07/09/2000, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ievance because Department has no material to rely on against him. In the circumstances, the W.P. is disposed of with direction to second respondent to complete the adjudication whatever be its worth for the Department within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner. If any document or data gathered on inspection or any material is relied upon based on documents, then copy of the same should be given to the petitioner and without furnishing copies of such documents should not be relied on by the second respondent for entering findings against the petitioner. viii. Thereafter Commissioner passed the impugned denovo adjudication order dt. 30/03/2007 confirming the demand of duty of Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers employed etc. while estimating the production. But this submission has been rejected both by the adjudicating authority and the appellate tribunal. The observations of the Hon'ble Tribunal in this regard makes it very clear the appellants have submitted that the factory could not have been working round the clock and there could be several factors for loss of production like break down of machinery, non-availability of manpower and raw materials and strikes. There is no force in this submission. Therefore, on the basis of evidence, that is available on records which can be relied upon, I have to conclude that the closest estimate of the production of Calicut Rubber Company during the period in question is that based on consumption of Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Sulphur 5,650 Kgs. 4,35,050 Kgs. Total 8,22,115.8 Kgs. 7. We find that the appellant is having grievance that why the Department has taken the quantity of tread rubber produced by them based on only one input i.e. Sulphur, whereas the Department had the figures of other inputs with them. As per the facts on record and submissions of both the sides, we are of the view that when the Department does not have other documents seized by them, fair assessment of tread rubber manufactured/produced by the appellant could be in terms of average production taking consideration of the figures in case of all these four inputs mentioned above. After adding the production of these four inputs, viz. rubber, carbon black, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
