Standard Input Output Norm deviation alone cannot sustain duty demand; penalty fails absent proof of wilful suppression.

Deviation from Standard Input Output Norms, by itself, was held insufficient to sustain duty demand on duty-free inputs used by a 100% EOU for export manufacture, because diversion or misuse was not established and the matter required fresh factual and legal examination. The limitation question was also remitted for de novo consideration, as the record did not show a complete examination of whether the extended period could validly be invoked in light of audits, returns, and alleged suppression. Penalties were set aside because the dispute was interpretational and there was no clear proof of wilful suppression or mala fide intent.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether alleged excess consumption of Master Batches, LDPE and LLDPE over Standard Input Output Norms justified confirmation of duty demand; (ii) whether the demand was hit by limitation; (iii) whether the penalties imposed were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether alleged excess consumption of Master Batches, LDPE and LLDPE over Standard Input Output Norms justified confirmation of duty demand

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether deviation from Standard Input Output Norms, by itself, established that duty-free inputs were not used for manufacture or had been diverted. The record showed that the appellant was a 100% EOU manufacturing export goods, that UV master batch and colour master batch were distinct inputs, and that the earlier appellate order in a connected matter had already treated colour master batch as requiring separate norm fixation. The Tribunal also noted that the notifications permitted duty-free procurement for export manufacture and that the issue required a fresh factual and legal examination rather than a presumption based only on norm deviation.

Conclusion: The duty demand on merits was not finally sustained and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was hit by limitation

Analysis: The Tribunal found that invocation of the extended period required re-examination in light of the records, the repeated departmental audits, the returns filed, and the authorities cited on suppression and knowledge of facts. The show cause notices and the impugned order did not reflect a full examination of whether the ingredients for extended limitation were actually established. The limitation issue was therefore left for reconsideration by the original authority along with the merits.

Conclusion: The question of limitation was remanded for de novo consideration.

Issue (iii): Whether the penalties imposed were sustainable

Analysis: Penalty was held to be unsustainable where the dispute was interpretational, the factual basis for wilful suppression or mala fide intent was not established, and the matter arose in the context of audit-based detection and regular returns. The Tribunal held that, on the existing record, penalty could not be justified in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The penalties were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The matter was sent back for fresh decision on duty demand and limitation, while the penalty portion was annulled.

Ratio Decidendi: Deviation from Standard Input Output Norms, without proof of diversion or misuse of duty-free inputs, is insufficient by itself to sustain duty demand, and penalty cannot be imposed absent clear evidence of wilful suppression or mala fide conduct.

---