Tribunal upholds Rs. 8.7M demand on Nibi Steel Ltd. for clandestine removal, imposes penalties.

The Tribunal confirmed a demand of Rs. 8,70,21,132 against M/s. Nibi Steel Ltd. with penalties on M/s. Monu Steels and the director for clandestine removal of MS Ingots. Despite challenges to the demand calculation and capacity utilization arguments, evidence of clandestine removal through diary entries and admissions supported the duty payment order. A pre-deposit of Rs. 11 lacs was mandated, with compliance required within four weeks to stay remaining liabilities pending appeal, emphasizing the need for balance between appellant interests and revenue authorities.

---

---

Issues: Stay applications against Order-in-Original confirming demand, penalty imposition on companies and director, suppression of production, clandestine removal, electricity consumption variation, capacity utilization, demand calculation basis, evidence of clandestine removal, applicability of previous judgments, pre-deposit order.

1. Stay Applications and Demand Confirmation:
The appellants filed stay applications against an Order-in-Original confirming a demand of Rs. 8,70,21,132 against M/s. Nibi Steel Ltd., with penalties imposed on M/s. Monu Steels and the director of M/s. Nibi Steels. The central issue revolved around the confirmation of the demand and penalties based on alleged suppression and clandestine removal of MS Ingots.

2. Suppression and Clandestine Removal:
The central excise officers conducted searches based on intelligence indicating suppression in MS Ingot production and clandestine removal through M/s. Monu Steels. Evidence, including a diary, suggested that M/s. Nibi Steels had removed 395.120 MT of MS Ingots without paying central excise duty. Discrepancies in electricity consumption and capacity utilization further raised suspicions of suppression.

3. Electricity Consumption and Capacity Utilization:
The appellants argued that the demand calculation solely based on the assumption of 830 units of electricity for 1 MT of MS Ingots was flawed. They contended that electricity consumption varies based on multiple factors and that their capacity utilization exceeding 100% indicated no suppression. The adjudicating authority's reliance on fixed electricity consumption was challenged.

4. Legal Precedents and Evidence Evaluation:
The Tribunal noted previous judgments like RA Castings Pvt. Ltd. and Bhavani Shankar Castings Ltd., emphasizing that high electricity consumption alone does not substantiate unaccounted production and clandestine removal. However, in the present case, evidence of clandestine removal through diary entries and admissions by M/s. Monu Steels supported the demand for duty payment on the removed steel quantity.

5. Pre-Deposit Order and Stay:
The Tribunal ordered a pre-deposit of Rs. 11 lacs, with Rs. 1 lac for M/s. Monu Steels, within four weeks. Compliance was set for a specific date, and the remaining liabilities were stayed pending the appeal. Failure to comply with the pre-deposit would result in the dismissal of the appeals. The pre-deposit order aimed to balance the interests of the appellants and the revenue authorities during the appeal process.

---