2008 (7) TMI 773

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ri Harjit Singh, one of the partners of RSW, has filed an appeal against imposition of a penalty of Rs. One lakh on him. Revenue has filed an appeal against the same impugned order seeking to impose penalty on RSW u/s 11AC, demand interest u/s 11AB from it and to determine the assessable value as the net sale proceeds denying benefit under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, '44 (the Act). Revenue also seeks to deny certain abatements the Commissioner had allowed in determining the duty demanded. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that rerolled iron and steel products were exempt from payment of duty till March '94 and duty @15% ad valorem was imposed in financial year 1994-95. Compared to daily production of the assessee ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he instant case, the crucial evidence for suppression of production is excess and unexplained consumption of electricity by RSW. Adopting the consumption of power for producing one tonne of MS rounds in 1993-94 as per the assessee's own records, the production of final product recorded is 611 tonnes less in 94-95 and 1473 tonnes less in 95-96 (upto 8/96). There is no valid or convincing explanation for the excess consumption of power. We find this an unimpeachable evidence rightly relied upon by the Commissioner in the impugned order. Assessee's defence and the main plank of challenge to the order is that the witnesses including the partners of RSW had retracted their incriminating statements and that the statements could not be relied upon....