Tribunal rules in favor of appellant, setting aside duty demand calculation on electricity consumption.

The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order related to duty demand calculation based on electricity consumption. It found the 600 unit PMT arbitrary and emphasized the need for evidence beyond consumption variation to confirm demand. The evidence from a kachcha chit recovered was deemed irrelevant to the demand period. The partner's statement on electricity consumption was rejected due to production variations, leading to the conclusion that there was no proof of clandestine removal of goods. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if applicable.

---

---

Issues:
1. Calculation of duty demand based on electricity consumption.
2. Relevance of evidence from the kachcha chit recovered.
3. Admissibility of partner's statement on electricity consumption.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addressed the calculation of duty demand based on electricity consumption. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand against the appellant by comparing the actual electricity consumption with the consumption required for production, leading to a differential demand calculation. The appellant argued that the test check of electricity consumption was not timely, and the 600 unit PMT adopted by the authority was incorrect. Citing various judgments, the appellant contended that demand cannot be solely confirmed based on electricity consumption variation. The tribunal agreed, emphasizing the arbitrary nature of the 600 unit PMT and referencing previous judgments like R.A. Castings Pvt. Ltd. and SRJ Peety Steel Pvt. Ltd. to support the decision.

2. The relevance of evidence from the kachcha chit recovered was also discussed. The appellant highlighted that the kachcha chit pertained to a period beyond the demand period and explained that the clearance during that time was within exemption limits. The tribunal concurred that the evidence was not relevant to the demand period under consideration, thus dismissing its significance in the case.

3. The admissibility of the partner's statement on electricity consumption was another crucial aspect. The partner had admitted the correctness of the 600 unit PMT, which the revenue relied upon. However, the tribunal found the calculation arbitrary based on production variations. Ultimately, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that there was no evidence of clandestine removal of goods, rendering the impugned order unsustainable and setting it aside. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if applicable, as per the law.

---