1987 (11) TMI 263 - AT - Central Excise

Duty payment method accepted, factory granted benefit of doubt due to lack of evidence.

FRIZAIR CORPORATION Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX.

The Tribunal accepted the validity of the duty payment method certified by the Superintendent, granting the factory, M/s. Frizair, the benefit of the ... Return and recovery of goods for repairs etc. Issues:1. Validity of duty payment method.2. Burden of proof on the department.3. Proof of duty payment for goods.4. Delay in repairs raising suspicion.5. Lack of records from other parties.6. Evasion during inspection.7. Unexplained elements in the case.8. Time management by the factory.9. Officer's inspection findings.10. Return of machines for repairs.11. Allegation of manufacturing new air-conditioners.12. Lack of identification of old machines.13. Assumption of manufacturing by the adjudicator.14. Benefit of doubt to the factory.Analysis:1. The Tribunal considered the validity of the duty payment method, where the Superintendent certified the payment by debiting in RG 23 as per the Additional Collector's order. Despite objections, the Tribunal accepted this certification as valid proof of duty payment, allowing the hearing to proceed.2. The burden of proof was a key issue, with the department failing to conclusively prove its case against M/s. Frizair. The counsel argued that the department relied on conjecture and surmise, lacking effective adjudication and proof. The factory's difficulties in finding repair parts and the communication with Central Excise were highlighted.3. The department raised concerns about proof of duty payment for the goods returned for repair, citing Rule 173H of Central Excise Rules. The lack of evidence of duty payment on the goods and the burden of proof on the assessee were emphasized.4. The prolonged delay in repairs raised suspicion, as genuine repairs were not expected to take such a long time. This delay, coupled with the lack of clarity on the repair process, added to the department's doubts.5. Lack of records from other parties, such as M/s. Jerry & Co., regarding the machines sent to Hyderabad, further complicated the case. The absence of documentation and evasion during inspection raised questions about the transparency of the transactions.6. The Tribunal noted unexplained elements in the case, including discrepancies in declarations and actions taken by the Central Excise officers. The lack of clarity and follow-up on inspections and declarations added to the confusion.7. The Tribunal highlighted the need for a thorough explanation of the unexplained elements to ensure transparency and compliance with regulations. The failure to address these elements satisfactorily cast doubt on the department's handling of the case.8. The factory's time management in handling the air-conditioners was scrutinized, with the Tribunal agreeing that the repair process should not have taken as long as claimed by the factory. The need for prompt action and communication with the department was stressed.9. The Tribunal considered the officer's inspection findings crucial, indicating that the officer found the machines genuinely required repair. This finding supported the factory's claim that the machines were received for repairs, guiding the Tribunal's decision.10. The issue of returning machines for repairs was pivotal, with the factory offering to remove the air-conditioners under official supervision. The lack of response from the department and the absence of a clear resolution to this offer raised concerns about the handling of the case.11. Allegations of manufacturing new air-conditioners were refuted, emphasizing that fitting new parts did not amount to manufacturing. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of identification of old machines and the need for clarity in distinguishing between repairs and manufacturing.12. The Tribunal criticized the lack of efforts to identify the old machines or investigate the alleged fresh manufacture. The absence of detailed findings and evidence to support the claims of fresh manufacture weakened the department's case.13. The adjudicator's assumption of manufacturing without conclusive proof was highlighted, with the factory's submission that the machines were for repairs standing unchallenged. The lack of a structured reasoning process in the adjudication order was noted.14. Ultimately, the Tribunal considered the benefit of doubt should favor the factory, M/s. Frizair Corporation, as the department failed to prove its case conclusively. The order of the Appellate Collector was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants.