Court upholds demand for suppressed ingot production, burden of proof on appellant. No illegality found, appeal dismissed.

SOMANI IRON & STEELS LTD. Versus CESTAT

SOMANI IRON & STEELS LTD. Versus CESTAT - 2011 (270) E.L.T. 189 (All.) Issues: Alleged suppressed production leading to demand for shortage of goods and subsequent legal proceedings.

The judgment pertains to a case where a search in the factory of the appellant revealed a shortage of 721 MTs of M.S. ingots, leading to a demand of Rs. 6,63,320 for the shortfall. Additionally, the suppressed production of ingots from February 1990 to January 1993 was calculated, resulting in a demand of Rs. 4,39,98,310. The Adjudication Officer confirmed the demand, prompting the appellant to file an appeal. The Tribunal upheld the demand for the period from January 1, 1993, to January 17, 1993, but set aside the demand for the remaining period due to lack of evidence linking the appellant to electricity theft. The appellant challenged this decision in the present appeal.

The High Court noted that the suppressed production was discovered from private records found in the possession of the appellant's employees at the factory. The burden of proof was on the appellant to demonstrate that the records were incorrect and not theirs. Consequently, the Court found no illegality in the determination of suppressed production from January 1, 1993, to January 17, 1993. The Court further held that no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's order, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.