TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 508
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant paid the duty involved in such shortage. However, no shortage of the stock of raw materials was detected at the time of verification. The appellant was found not to be maintaining any record to substantiate quantity of final product manufactured on day to day basis. The Department verified the records covering the period 1/5/1998 to 20/4/2000 and estimated the total quantity of goods which can be manufactured out of 1MT of MS Flats/ as 0.900 MT of spring leaves ; scrap of 0.099 MT and packing materials of 0.001MT. 2. On the basis of the above thumb rule, the Department projected the total quantity of spring leaves which could have been manufactured during the period of dispute, on the basis of the total quantity of MS plates issued for manufacture. By taking into account the total quantity of spring leaves already accounted, it was alleged that the appellant has manufactured and cleared spring leaves in unaccounted manner to the extent of 735.531 MT as follows: Details of Excise Duty payable -Case of M/s. Kripal Alloys Steel Pvt. Ltd., Bargarh (For the period from April, 98 to April, 2000 (upto 20.04.2000) Qnty. of flats issued (MT) Qnty. of flats not accoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant. We uphold findings of the Authority below on all other allegations in the order of adjudication in absence of any merit to the defence of the Appellant. 5. In the result, we allow the appeal to the limited extent as stated above, remanding the matter for redetermination of duty liability under Annexure 'C' and 'D' to the show cause notice following principles of natural justice. The matter of imposition of penalty shall be re-considered by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority only upon completion of reassessment." 4. The Jurisdictional Commissioner decided the issue in de novo proceedings by issue of original order vide No. 13/08 dated- 17/06/2008. In compliance with the directions of the Tribunal, he carried out certain verifications at four different manufacturers who were engaged in the manufacture of similar goods so as to ascertain the waste/loss arising during the course of manufacture. The copies of the verification reports were made available to the appellant to give them an opportunity to rebut the same. The summary of said verification was as follows: Sl. No. Name of the Commissionerate Name of the Unit Type of waste/loss claimed by the unit as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant contended that by taking into account the pouring and burning loss; burning and scale loss as well as tolerance, the total recorded loss which was of the order of around 22.46% which was reasonable and as such, they claimed that it cannot be alleged that the appellant has indulged in clandestine clearance of the Springs. 9. The Adjudicating Authority after taking into consideration all the arguments advanced before him, adopted the ratio of 3.04% as admissible towards burning loss. In addition, he also reckoned the yield in the manufacture of Spring Leaves as 90% and after allowing the waste as above, he recomputed the demand and reduced it to Rs. 19,75,588 alongwith interest and penalty of an equal amount. This order is under challenge in the present proceedings. 10. The appellant is represented by Shri K.K. Achariya, Ld. Advocate and the Revenue is represented by Shri S. Mukhopadhyay, Supdt. (A.R.). 11. The submissions of the Ld. Advocate are summarised below: Ld. Advocate submitted that the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority is not sustainable in law for the following reasons : (i) The Ld. Commissioner has picked and chosen only those eviden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order. His submissions are recorded below: (i) He submitted that the Chartered Engineer's certificate submitted by the appellant is vague and not in detail. The certificate has indicated a loss of upto 20% without giving any further details.. (ii) He emphasized that the CESTAT in the last round of litigation has already observed that the plea of limitation is rejected that the case has been remanded only for the purpose of reconsideration as to the permissibility of process loss to the extent quantifiable reasonably. He referred to the observations of the Adjudicating Authority in the claim of excess process loss and emphasized that the Adjudicating authority has already allowed the reasonable quantum of process loss and the same may be upheld. 14. We have heard both sides at length and perused the records. 15. This is the second round of litigation before the Tribunal. In the first round of litigation, the issue was remanded to the Adjudicating authority for de novo decision. The Tribunal has observed that certain amount of process loss was inevitable and the issue was remanded for the purpose of arriving at a reasonably measure for such process loss which....