Inferred production from power consumption must rest on proven norms or corroborative evidence, not bare presumption.

Duty demand based on inferred steel ingot production from electricity consumption requires reliable evidentiary support, including an established norm, seized private records, departmental verification, or comparable corroboration. Where the record shows no proved consumption norm and no seized records, a consumption figure adopted by the adjudicating authority cannot sustain the demand on bare presumption. The matter must be re-examined with consideration of the assessee's explanation and, if necessary, experimental verification of factory power consumption. The issue was resolved in favour of the assessee and remanded for de novo adjudication.

---

---

Issues: Whether the production of steel ingots could be determined on the basis of power consumption and whether the demand could be sustained in the absence of a proved norm, seized private records, or experimental verification.

Analysis: The determination of production was founded on electricity consumption, but the record did not show any established norm of consumption, any private records seized from the appellants, or any departmental norm fixed under the relevant rule. The power-consumption figure adopted by the adjudicating authority was therefore not supported by record-based findings. In such a situation, a demand resting on such a basis could not be sustained without corroborative material; the matter required fresh adjudication with consideration of the appellants' explanation and, if necessary, experimental verification of power consumption in the factory.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the appellants, and the matter was remanded for de novo decision.

Ratio Decidendi: A duty demand based on inferred production from power consumption must rest on reliable evidence, established norms, or corroborative material, and cannot be upheld on a bare presumption.

---