Tribunal reverses demand for interest and penalties under Central Excise Act for Piperazine production

The Tribunal set aside the demand for interest and penalties under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act due to discrepancies between the Daily Production Report and RG.1 Register for Piperazine. It found that the entries in the report were rough estimates, supported by the nature of the manufacturing process, where solidification caused discrepancies. The Tribunal accepted the appellant's explanation, noting consistent higher entries in the RG.1 Register, indicating rough estimates. Consequently, the demand was deemed unsustainable, leading to the allowance of the appeal and the reversal of the impugned order.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against demand of interest and penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act for non-payment of duty on 6100 Kgs. of Piperazine due to discrepancies between Daily Production Report and RG.1 Register.

Analysis:
The appellant contested the demand, arguing that the entries in the Daily Production Report were rough estimates, and discrepancies between the report and the RG.1 Register were due to the nature of the manufacturing process. Specifically, they highlighted instances where the quantity in the report was less than that in the register for certain months, indicating the estimate basis of the report. The appellant emphasized that the entries were not indicative of duty evasion.

The Revenue, however, relied on the statement of the authorized signatory, stating that the stock mentioned in the Daily Production Report was ready for dispatch. They pointed out an excess quantity of 6100 kgs of Piperazine in the report for a specific period, which was not reflected in the statutory records, leading to the conclusion that duty had been evaded.

The Tribunal examined the details provided by both parties, including a comparison table showing discrepancies between the Daily Production Report and the RG.1 Register for various months. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's explanation regarding the nature of the manufacturing process, where the liquid form of Piperazine solidified after collection. They found merit in the appellant's argument, noting that the entries in the RG.1 Register were consistently higher than those in the Daily Production Report for the same months, supporting the claim of rough estimates in the report. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the demand based on the entries in the Daily Production Report, which were on an estimate basis, was not sustainable. As a result, the impugned order confirming the demand, interest, and penalties was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

---