2000 (2) TMI 551 - AT - Central Excise

Court overturns duty and penalty demand due to discrepancies and lack of evidence in manufacturing process.

STEELCO GUJARAT LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VADODARA

The court set aside the demand for duty and penalty imposed by the department due to discrepancies in the Tribunal's order, failure to consider various ... Demand - Clandestine manufacture Issues:1. Correction of mistake in Tribunal's order regarding demand for duty and penalty.2. Failure to consider various stages in the manufacture of cold rolled coils.3. Statements of officers not supporting the department's stand.4. Discrepancies in plant performance reports and RG1 register entries.5. Lack of clarity in production reports sent to Geneva.6. Lack of evidence that figures in production reports represent goods ready for dispatch.Issue 1:The judgment deals with the correction of a mistake in the Tribunal's order regarding the demand for duty and penalty. The Tribunal had confirmed a demand for duty and penalty based on the alleged suppression of production and failure to pay duty. However, it was noted that the reference to the balance sheet in the order was incorrect as the show cause notice did not cite the balance sheet but only the plant performance report.Issue 2:The appellant argued that the department failed to consider various stages in the manufacture of cold rolled coils, such as annealing, skin passing, inspecting, and cutting, before the goods reach the final stage. The Tribunal did not address this argument and relied on statements of certain officers which did not explicitly support the department's position.Issue 3:The contention was raised that the statements of officers did not substantiate the department's claim as they only certified the correctness of the plant performance report without confirming the figures of production of cold rolled coils. It was highlighted that there was a lack of evidence supporting the department's stance in this regard.Issue 4:Discrepancies were noted between the figures in the plant performance reports and the entries in the RG1 register. The reports sent to Geneva contained details of intermediate processes but did not clearly indicate the quantity of the final product, leading to doubts about the accuracy of the production figures in the RG1 register.Issue 5:The judgment highlighted the lack of clarity in the purpose of production reports sent to Geneva, which did not specify the quantity of the final product but only detailed intermediate processes. The reports did not substantiate the department's claim that they contained details of finished products ready for dispatch.Issue 6:It was observed that there was no evidence to support that the figures shown as production in the mill in the reports were goods ready for dispatch. The lack of clarity and discrepancies in the figures presented raised doubts about the accuracy of the production and packing data, leading to the decision to set aside the demand for duty and penalty imposed by the department.