Balance-sheet evidence and captive consumption can trigger excise duty, while non-disclosure sustains extended limitation and adjudication power.

Duly prepared and authenticated balance-sheet entries recording fabricated testing equipment and plant and machinery were treated as reliable evidence of manufacture, so central excise duty liability was upheld. Excisable goods consumed or utilised within the factory were deemed removed under the Central Excise Rules even without physical removal or further processing, so captive consumption attracted duty. Non-disclosure of manufacture, absence of licence, and failure to file classification or price lists constituted suppression of facts, so the extended limitation period remained available. The adjudicating authority was held competent under the amended statutory scheme, so the demand and penalty were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the fabrication of testing equipment and plant and machinery shown in the balance sheet amounted to manufacture liable to central excise duty and whether the balance sheet could be relied upon as evidence; (ii) Whether the goods consumed within the factory were deemed to have been removed under the Central Excise Rules; (iii) Whether the extended period of limitation was invokable for suppression of facts; (iv) Whether the Additional Collector had jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.

Issue (i): Whether the fabrication of testing equipment and plant and machinery shown in the balance sheet amounted to manufacture liable to central excise duty and whether the balance sheet could be relied upon as evidence.

Analysis: The balance sheet and profit and loss account specifically recorded addition to plant and machinery including testing equipment fabricated in the company by capitalisation of expenditure on raw material, stores and spares, and salary and wages. The Court treated these audited and authenticated accounts as significant documentary evidence, and rejected the explanation that the entries were merely for portraying a favourable picture to shareholders. The statutory nature of the balance sheet and the supporting audit made the entry credible, and the plea that the goods never reached a finished stage was not accepted.

Conclusion: The fabrication recorded in the balance sheet was accepted as proof of manufacture and duty liability was upheld, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the goods consumed within the factory were deemed to have been removed under the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis: The Explanation to Rules 9 and 49 provided that excisable goods manufactured and consumed or utilised as such are deemed to have been removed immediately for such consumption or utilisation. The Court held that physical removal from the factory was not necessary and that no further processing was required for the deeming provision to operate. The argument that the items had not been transformed into another product was rejected.

Conclusion: The goods consumed captively were held to be deemed removed, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the extended period of limitation was invokable for suppression of facts.

Analysis: The assessee had neither taken the requisite licence nor disclosed manufacture of the goods to the Department, and had not filed the classification list or price list. In these circumstances, non-disclosure constituted suppression of facts. Subsequent correspondence did not neutralise the earlier suppression, and the extended period remained available to the Department.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was held to be invokable, against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the Additional Collector had jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.

Analysis: The Court accepted the view that the statutory scheme as amended with effect from 14-5-1992 empowered the Central Excise Officer to issue and adjudicate the notice even where the proviso to Section 11A was invoked. The administrative instruction relied upon by the assessee did not curtail the statutory power of adjudication.

Conclusion: The Additional Collector was held to be competent to adjudicate the matter, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The demand of central excise duty and the penalty were sustained, and the appeal failed in entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: Entries in a duly prepared and authenticated balance sheet can constitute reliable evidence of manufacture, and excisable goods consumed within the factory are deemed removed under the Central Excise Rules even without physical removal or further processing; where such manufacture is not disclosed to the Department, the extended limitation period is available.

---