Appellant's Duty Demand Upheld Due to Lack of Evidence

MA KALI ENGINEERING Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BOLPUR

MA KALI ENGINEERING Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BOLPUR - 2006 (206) E.L.T. 315 (Tri. - Kolkata) Issues:
1. Liability of duty payment post opting out of MODVAT Scheme.
2. Alleged suppression of facts by the appellant company.
3. Lack of documentary evidence to support appellant's claims.

Analysis:
1. The appellant company opted out of the MODVAT Scheme on 1-4-1997. They used 50% waste and scrap along with 50% duty-paid raw materials in their finished goods. The Department confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 94,387.00, out of which the appellant had already paid Rs. 47,199.00 based on the 50% criteria. The appellant argued that they have no further liability to pay and should not face any penalty. However, the Revenue contended that the appellant suppressed facts, leading to the duty demand. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed discrepancies in stock declarations and job-work processes, indicating suppression. The lack of declaration upon opting out of the MODVAT Scheme and failure to provide statutory explanations for discrepancies worked against the appellant. The Tribunal upheld the duty demand based on these findings.

2. The Revenue highlighted discrepancies in the appellant's declarations post opting out of the MODVAT Scheme. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted suppressed quantities of finished products and semi-processed goods sent for job-work without debiting the equivalent Central Excise duty. The appellant's deviation from their initial stand and lack of documentary evidence to support their claims weakened their case. The Commissioner (Appeals found the appellant's contentions unsubstantiated and justified the duty demand. The Tribunal concurred with these findings, emphasizing the importance of documentary evidence and regular practice in determining duty liabilities.

3. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the lack of documentary evidence supporting the appellant's assertions. The appellant failed to provide records demonstrating the regular use of modvatable and non-modvatable inputs on a 1:1 basis, as claimed. The absence of documentary proof and failure to establish a consistent practice undermined the appellant's arguments. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order based on the appellant's inability to substantiate their case with concrete evidence, emphasizing the necessity of supporting contentions with proper documentation in excise duty matters.