Burden of proof in compounded levy disputes: actual production claim upheld prima facie, with stay granted.

For quantifying duty liability under the compounded levy scheme, claimed actual production could not be rejected merely because the assessee did not prove why production was lower than the fixed annual capacity. Documentary records, including electricity consumption data, supported the production claim, and no rebuttal evidence, direct or indirect, was produced to discredit it. On the interim record, the burden was not shifted onto the assessee to justify the lower production figure, and the absence of contrary material meant the claim could not be treated as false at the stay stage. A prima facie case was therefore made out and stay was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for purposes of quantifying duty liability under the compounded levy scheme, the appellant's claimed actual production could be rejected for want of proof of lower production and whether a prima facie case was made out for stay.

Analysis: The appellant had produced documentary records, including electricity consumption data, to support the claimed actual production. No rebuttal evidence, direct or indirect, was shown by the Revenue to discredit that claim. The burden could not be shifted onto the appellant to prove why production was lower than the annual capacity fixed, and the absence of contrary material meant that the claimed production could not be treated as false at the interim stage.

Outcome: A prima facie case was found in favour of the appellant and the stay petition was allowed.

---