Tribunal dismisses royalty demand & shortage claims due to lack of evidence, upholds appeals

The Tribunal set aside the demand against the appellants for paying royalty over what was declared and for the alleged shortage of MS Bars. The Tribunal found the evidence insufficient to support the claims of clandestine removal and shortage, referencing previous cases to emphasize the need for concrete evidence. Consequently, the demand for duty was deemed unsustainable, leading to the dismissal of penalties and allowing the appeals with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Payment of royalty over and above what was declared to the Department.
2. Shortage of 72 MT of MS Bars found during stock taking.

Summary:

Issue (a): Payment of royalty over and above what was declared to the Department

The appellants were accused of paying royalty to M/s Kamdhenu Ispat Limited (KIL) over and above what was declared to the Department, based on documents recovered from KIL. The Tribunal referenced a similar case, Giriraj Irosteel Company Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, where it was held that demands cannot be confirmed solely on the basis of presumptions and assumptions without evidence of excess production, raw material procurement, dispatch details, customer identification, and power consumption. The Tribunal concluded that the demand alleging clandestine removal on the basis of payment of royalty recorded in the books of KIL is not sustainable.

Issue (b): Shortage of 72 MT of MS Bars found during stock taking

The Tribunal found that the method used to ascertain the shortage was flawed. The stock was estimated based on the weight of one bundle of each size, without proper counting of over 32,000 bundles. This method was deemed unreliable, similar to the precedent set in Sada Shiv Steel Mills Vs. CCE, Chandigarh I, where it was held that weighment done on an average basis without corroborative evidence of clearance of finished goods without payment of duty is not sustainable. Consequently, the allegation of shortage was not upheld.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal set aside the entire demand confirmed against the appellants, stating that the allegations of clandestine removal and shortage of goods were not substantiated. As the demand of duty was found to be unsustainable, no penalties were imposed on the appellants. The appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

---