Theoretical input-output norms cannot sustain duty demands without corroborative evidence; penalties fail absent proven suppression.

Interest remained payable on duty that had been admitted and paid before the show cause notice in respect of wrong exemption availment, but penalty was not sustained because suppression of facts was not established. A duty demand founded only on standard input-output norms for terry towels was deleted where there was no corroborative evidence of excess yarn consumption or diversion, the PVA fibre was shown to dissolve during processing, and the waste stayed within permissible limits after exclusion. On that footing, the related duty, interest and penalties were set aside, and the personal penalty on the co-appellant also failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether interest was payable on duty admitted and paid before issue of the show cause notice in respect of wrong availment of exemption under Notification No. 8/97-CE and Notification No. 15/2002-CE, and whether penalty could be sustained; (ii) Whether the duty demand based on alleged violation of standard input-output norms in the manufacture of terry towels was sustainable; (iii) Whether the penalties on the assessee and the co-appellant were liable to be set aside.

Issue (i): Whether interest was payable on duty admitted and paid before issue of the show cause notice in respect of wrong availment of exemption under Notification No. 8/97-CE and Notification No. 15/2002-CE, and whether penalty could be sustained.

Analysis: The duty on these two heads had already been admitted and paid before the show cause notice. The dispute survived only on interest and penalty. The liability to pay interest on confirmed duty was upheld, but penalty could not be sustained where the record did not establish suppression of facts.

Conclusion: Interest was upheld and the penalty relating to the second demand was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the duty demand based on alleged violation of standard input-output norms in the manufacture of terry towels was sustainable.

Analysis: The demand was based only on the standard input-output norms for 100% cotton terry towels, without adequate corroboration of excess yarn use or diversion. The assessee had used PVA fibre, which was shown to dissolve during processing, and once that weight was excluded the waste remained within the permissible limit. The Board's clarification on waste for 100% EOUs supported the assessee's case.

Conclusion: The duty demand, interest and penalty on this issue were set aside.

Issue (iii): Whether the penalties on the assessee and the co-appellant were liable to be set aside.

Analysis: Since the principal demand on the third issue failed and penalty on the second issue was not justified for want of suppression, the connected penalties could not survive. The personal penalty on the co-appellant was also unsustainable in the final result.

Conclusion: The penalties on the assessee and the co-appellant were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded in part for the company and fully for the co-appellant, with the major demand deleted and only the admitted duty-related interest sustained on the first two issues.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand based solely on theoretical input-output norms cannot be sustained without corroborative evidence of excess consumption or diversion, and penalty requires a proven element of suppression or equivalent culpability.

---