Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2010 (3) TMI 982

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....90 of CETA, 1985. They were issued with 4 show cause notices as detailed below : Sl. No. SCN No. and date Period covered Duty demanded 1. V(17)171-Dem/96/2020 dated 20-9-96 April, 96 to June , 96 Rs. 6,06,020/- 2. V(15)198-Dem/96/2319 dated 1-11-96 July, 96 to September, 96 Rs. 3,62,952/- 3. V(15)36-Dem/97/371 dated 3-2-97 Oct. 96 to Dec. 96 Rs. 80,387/- 4. V(15)210-Dem/97/1409 dated 25-6-97 Jan, 97 to April, 97 Rs. 4,64,630/-   Total Duty Demanded   Rs. 15,13,989/- The basis for issue of the show cause notices was the order passed by the Collector, Kanpur in respect of M/s. Alfa Castings Pvt. Ltd. treating average electricity consumption per M.T. of M.S. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s below 1000 units per M.T. However, he confirmed the demand of Rs. 4,16,582/- relating to the period April 1996 to June, 1996 as against the demand proposed in the show cause notice amounting to Rs. 6,06,020/- and he also confirmed the demand of Rs. 40,649/- relating to the period January 1997 to April, 1997 as against the proposed demand of Rs. 4,64,630/-. He also imposed penalties on the appellant. The order of the original authority stands upheld as far as the demand of duty was concerned but the penalty was reduced to Rs. 90,000/-. 4.1 Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants assails the impugned orders on various grounds. He submits that their unit was started in 1994; no specific investigation was conducted by visiting their ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uire less electricity than the first heat. If there was a power failure, then the material in process requires to be re-melted and the consumption of electricity goes up substantially. If the raw materials are of poor quality then the power consumption goes up. All these changes are applicable even in respect of the activities in the same factory premises. 4.5 In view of the above, to compare the electricity consumption of another unit which itself was having varying consumption pattern was not justified. 4.6 He also submits that no other evidence such as procurement of other raw materials, the man-power deployment, private records indicating any excess production or any evidence of clandestine removal has been relied upon. Under ther....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....elies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Triveni Rubber and Plastics v. C.C.E., Cochin reported in 1994 (73) E.L.T. 7 (S.C.) to contend that the production calculated on the basis of average consumption of electricity is in order. He also relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of L. Kant Paper Mills (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Kanpur reported in 1999 (109) E.L.T. 585 to contend that the power consumption is a valid factor In order to determine the quantum of production. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides. A reading of the show cause notices reveals that serious charges of unaccounted production and clandestine removal has been made merely based on the order dated 29-2-1998 passed b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... mentioning. If there was evasion, it was a case of missed opportunity in conducting investigation to unearth the evasion. No demand can be confirmed merely on. the basis of average consumption of electricity in another unit, by making serious allegation of suppression of production or clandestine removal without any corroborative evidence. 7.1 It is submitted across the Bar that the unit is closed since last several years and therefore, the question of conducting any experiment on the unit at this stage also does not arise. 7.2 The reliance placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Triveni Rubber and Plastics is misplaced. The said decision related to interpretation of Rule 173E of Central Excise Rules which ....