Excise set-off claims must be proved by records, and unsubstantiated higher input consumption will not justify additional benefit.

A claim for excise set-off under Notification No. 355/86-C.E. based on higher consumption of cut tobacco must be supported by credible records or other evidence. The assessee failed to prove actual consumption of 816 gms. for manufacture of 1,000 cigarettes, and earlier factual observations from a set-aside remand order could not be relied on. On the available record, the higher set-off claim remained unsubstantiated, so the additional benefit was denied.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to claim higher set-off on the basis of increased consumption of cut tobacco for manufacture of 1,000 cigarettes under Notification No. 355/86-C.E. dated 24-6-1986.

Analysis: The claim for higher set-off was rejected because the appellant did not produce records or other evidence to establish actual consumption of 816 gms. of cut tobacco. The earlier appellate order had been set aside and remanded, so no reliance could be placed on its earlier factual observations. The current appellate finding that the claim remained unsubstantiated was therefore upheld as a reasoned determination on the available record.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to the higher set-off claim.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed as the asserted higher consumption was not proved by evidence, and the revenue's denial of the additional set-off was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim for excise set-off based on higher input consumption must be supported by credible records or evidence, failing which the benefit of the notification cannot be granted.

---