Exemption misuse claims need clear proof of suppression and contravention before a duty demand can stand.

A duty demand based on alleged misuse of exemption notifications failed because the Revenue did not establish clear suppression, non-accountal, or any proved contravention. The earlier period was held to be covered by the same exemption-related controversy, and the limitation objection was therefore rightly accepted. On merits, the notices did not provide a substantiated basis for comparing actual input deployment with any norm, and unsupported allegations that duty-free inputs were used to generate power or that records were manipulated could not sustain the demand. The order dropping the demands was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand for the earliest period was barred by limitation. (ii) Whether duty could be demanded on the allegation that duty-free inputs were misused for generation of power and that records were manipulated to conceal the true nature of procurement and consumption.

Issue (i): Whether the demand for the earliest period was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The earlier dispute was found to involve the same exemption-based controversy concerning power generated with exempt inputs. The allegation could not be distinguished merely because the earlier proceedings were framed in a different manner. In the absence of a distinct basis to separate the two disputes, the bar of limitation accepted by the original authority was not shown to be erroneous.

Conclusion: The limitation objection was rightly accepted against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether duty could be demanded on the allegation that duty-free inputs were misused for generation of power and that records were manipulated to conceal the true nature of procurement and consumption.

Analysis: There was no substantiated allegation of suppression or non-accountal of procurement against the certificates permitting duty-free procurement. The notices did not establish any norm for comparison with actual input deployment for power generation. The allegation that sub-standard procurement was a device to conceal paper entries for passing MODVAT credit to other entities was unsupported by evidence and had no bearing on the notifications invoked. On the material available, the possibility that power had been generated with duty-paid material could not sustain the demand of duty on the footing alleged by Revenue.

Conclusion: The demand was not sustainable and the impugned order called for no interference.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both limitation and merits, and the order dropping the demands was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A duty demand based on alleged misuse of exemption notifications must be supported by clear evidence of suppression, non-accountal, or other established contravention, and cannot be upheld on unsubstantiated assumptions or on facts that do not materially distinguish the earlier dispute.

---