Court Quashes Order, Emphasizes Evidence

The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Order-in-Original, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. It emphasized the need for substantive evidence, criticized reliance on unreliable reports, and highlighted the violation of principles of natural justice. The court directed the conduct of experiments at the petitioner's factory premises to determine actual electricity consumption patterns and collection of substantive evidence for proper adjudication.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Amendment in the writ petition.
2. Validity of the show cause notices and Order-in-Original.
3. Reliance on electricity consumption patterns as evidence.
4. Violation of principles of natural justice.
5. Remand for fresh adjudication.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Amendment in the Writ Petition:
The interlocutory application (I.A. No. 8817 of 2017) was filed for amendment in the writ petition. The court allowed the amendment, noting that it would not change the nature of the writ petition but rather facilitate the resolution of the dispute.

2. Validity of the Show Cause Notices and Order-in-Original:
The petitioner challenged the show cause notices and Order-in-Original dated 30.03.2010/09.04.2010 on the grounds of presumptions and surmises about unaccounted manufacturing of M.S. Ingots and clandestine removal. The petitioner argued that the electricity consumption pattern used as a basis was baseless and not supported by conclusive evidence. The court noted that the show cause notices were primarily based on unrealistic electricity consumption patterns and relied on Dr. N.K. Batra's report, which has been criticized and deemed unreliable in several judgments.

3. Reliance on Electricity Consumption Patterns as Evidence:
The court emphasized that electricity consumption patterns could only serve as corroborative evidence and not substantive proof of clandestine removal. The court highlighted that the burden of proof lies on the respondents to establish unaccounted manufacturing and clandestine removal with substantive evidence, which was not done in this case. The court criticized the reliance on Dr. N.K. Batra's report without conducting experiments at the petitioner's factory premises to determine the actual electricity consumption for manufacturing M.S. Ingots.

4. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The court found that the principles of natural justice were violated as the adjudicating authority did not address the main contentions raised by the petitioner and failed to provide reasons for differing from the decisions relied upon by the petitioner. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract Act and Leasing, Kota v. Shukla and Brothers, which mandates that orders should give reasons for arriving at any conclusion, showing proper application of mind.

5. Remand for Fresh Adjudication:
The court quashed and set aside the Order-in-Original dated 30.03.2010/09.04.2010 and remanded the matter to the Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Jamshedpur for fresh adjudication. The court directed that if the respondents rely on Dr. N.K. Batra's report, an experiment must be conducted at the petitioner's factory premises to determine the actual electricity consumption pattern. The court also directed the collection of substantive evidence as far as possible.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Order-in-Original, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need for substantive evidence and adherence to principles of natural justice.

---