2025 (2) TMI 416 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upholds Appeal for MS Ingot Manufacturer, Citing Unreliable Evidence and Upholds Previous Adjudication.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a manufacturer of MS Ingot, finding that allegations of suppressed manufacture were unsubstantiated. The ... Clandestine removal - appellant has consumed electricity in excess than the production what has been accounted - suppression of total manufactured quantity - demand raised by the Revenue for the period December 2012 to September 2013 - HELD THAT:- The Department has been issuing periodical notices on the appellant based on the same allegation that the electrical consumption shows that the appellant should have manufactured more ingots. All the proceedings are on the basis of Dr. Batra’s Report on output ratio based on electrical consumption. The earlier eight Show Cause Notices are for the period 2002-03 to 2010. All the Show Cause Notices were initially decided by the adjudicating authority against the party and the demands were confirmed. The appellants had filed their appeal before the Tribunal. Conclusion - The allegations of suppressing manufacture were not substantiated, as the reliance on Dr. Batra's report was deemed unreliable based on previous precedents. The Tribunal had remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to go through all the documentary evidence placed before him and to pass a considered decision - Appeal allowed. The Appellate Tribunal considered a case involving a manufacturer of MS Ingot under the Central Excise Tariff Act. The appellant was accused of suppressing the manufacture of MS Ingot based on the discrepancy between the electricity consumed and the production accounted for in their records. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, leading the appellant to appeal before the Tribunal.The key issue revolved around whether the appellant had indeed suppressed the manufacture of MS Ingot, as alleged by the Revenue based on the consumption of electricity exceeding the production recorded. The appellant's advocate argued that the case relied solely on Dr. Batra's report and lacked corroborative evidence such as cash transactions or buyer statements to support the claim of clandestine clearance of goods.The Tribunal noted that similar allegations had been made against the appellant in the past, leading to multiple Show Cause Notices and appeals. In a previous decision, the Tribunal remanded the matter for a fresh decision by the adjudicating authority. The authority, in a denovo decision, concluded that the reliance on Dr. Batra's report was misplaced, citing precedent cases. Consequently, all earlier demands were dropped, and the Revenue did not appeal this decision.In the current case, the Tribunal found that the issue had already been settled in the denovo decision, where the adjudicating authority had provided a detailed and considered ruling. As the Revenue had not challenged this decision, the Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, setting aside the impugned order.The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to any consequential relief as per the law. The decision was pronounced on 11th February 2025.In summary, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the allegations of suppressing manufacture were not substantiated, as the reliance on Dr. Batra's report was deemed unreliable based on previous precedents. The Tribunal upheld the denovo decision dropping all demands and allowed the appeal, providing the appellant with potential relief as per the law.