CESTAT Upholds Decision on Duty Demand for Hydrogen Gas Clearance

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in a case involving duty demand on hydrogen gas clearance. The Tribunal rejected the appeal by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Indore, challenging the setting aside of demand and penalties. It emphasized the significance of factual verification over statements, supporting the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision based on international formula and cylinder pressure readings. The judgment highlighted discrepancies between the company officer's admissions and actual verification, ultimately confirming the impugned order and dismissing the appeals.

---

---

Issues:
1. Duty demand based on alleged excess clearance of hydrogen gas.
2. Challenge against Commissioner's order setting aside demand and penalty.
3. Admissibility of company officer's admissions during investigation.
4. Verification of gas quantity through international formula and cylinder pressure.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi involved two appeals by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Indore against an order-in-order-appeal of Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Indore. The appeals were consolidated and addressed together. The case revolved around M/s. Grasim Industries Limited's clearance of hydrogen gas to M/s. Goyal M.G. Gases Ltd., where duty was paid based on the quantity determined at the recipient's end from November 1995 to November 1997. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued alleging a higher quantity of gas clearance, resulting in a duty demand of Rs. 10 lakhs and penalties.

During the appeal process, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand and penalty, citing no excess clearance based on the international formula used and verification of 200 cylinders. The appellants challenged this finding, arguing that the company officer had admitted to the higher quantity during the investigation. However, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision. The Tribunal highlighted discrepancies between the officer's statements and the actual cylinder pressure verification, emphasizing that facts ascertained through investigation take precedence over statements.

Ultimately, the Tribunal confirmed the impugned order, rejecting the appeals. The judgment underscored the importance of factual verification over statements and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision based on the international formula and cylinder pressure readings.

---