TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 1519
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tive appeals are as under : Sr.No. Appeal No. Name of Assessee Date of order of the CIT (A), Aurangabad Asstt. Year 1. ITA Nos.219 to 221/PN/2012 Rhishi Steel and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. 30-12-2011 2006-07 to 2008-09 ITA Nos.414 to 416/PN/2012 2. ITA Nos.216 to 218/PN/2012 Jailaxmi Casting and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. 30-12-2011 2006-07 to 2008-09 ITA Nos. 418 to 420/PN/2012 3. ITA Nos.224 to 226/PN/2012 Mauli Steel Pvt. Ltd. 30-12-2011 2006-07 to 2008-09 ITA Nos.402 to 404/PN/2012 4. ITA Nos. 227 to 230/PN/2012 Gajlaxmi Steel Pvt. Ltd. 09-01-2012 2005-06 to 2008-09 ITA Nos.676 to 679/PN/2012 5. ITA Nos.243 and 244/PN/2012 Adinath Concast Pvt. Ltd. 06-01-2012 2006-07 & 2007-08 ITA Nos. 636 and 637/PN/2012 6. ITA Nos.258 to 261/PN/2012 Saptashrungi Alloys Pvt. Ltd. 06-01-2012 2005-06 to 2008-09 ITA Nos.680 to 683/PN/2012 7. ITA Nos.279 to 281/PN/2012 Meta Rolls & Commodities Pvt. Ltd. 30-12-2011 2006-07 to 2008-09 ITA Nos.408 to 410/PN/2012 2. First we take up ITA No.219/PN/2012 filed by the Assessee and ITA No.414/PN/2012 filed by the Revenue. Facts of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urangabad's SCN for the reason that it is based on the technical analysis with expert opinion, detailed reasoning and data collected. In response to the same, the assessee by and large reiterated the stand taken before the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad which according to the AO is not on sound footings and which was rejected by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs. In view of the above, as also the detailed comparative analysis of data prepared from the assessee's books of accounts, peer analysis and details furnished the AO held that it is apparent that the rate of units of electricity per metric tonne adopted by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad is very much reasonable, fair and justified. He accordingly concluded that the rates for calculation of suppressed production in assessee's case adopted by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad are absolutely reasonable. He therefore adopted the same for the purpose of calculation of unaccounted production of finished goods. The AO further was of the opinion that the books of account of the assessee do not reflect the true and correct picture of manufacturing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as simply & incorrectly estimated that for manufacturing one Metric Ton MS ingot, 1026 units of electricity are required. (3) The order of Commissioner of Central Excise is based on estimates, academic study and theoretical calculations and hence is challenged by the assessee before CESTAT. (4) The Central Excise Department has actually verified electricity consumption in appellant's plant which was found to be in order. The Excise Department should have worked out the electricity units required for producing one Metric Ton MS ingots/billets by actual physical verification in the plants of various manufacturers. (5) The reliance placed by the Commissioner of Central Excise in its order on the report of I.I.T., Kanpur and technical report of Dr.Batra is misplaced as the copies of the said reports were neither given to the appellant nor any cross examination was allowed. (6) The Executive Director, All India Furnace Association vide his report dated 18/03/2008 has stated that the higher consumption of electricity can be attributable to light scrap and sponge iron etc. reasons. (7) The Excise Department has considered entire electricity....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stoms and Excise Department and has paid Excise Duty and the Settlement Commission has levied token penalty in respect of the said clandestine sale out of the books. (3) The Commissioner of Excise in his order and the A.O. have reasonably estimated, after considering various reports and studies in respect of electricity consumption required for producing MS ingots/billets, at 1026 electricity units per Metric Ton. (4) The A.O. has also pointed out that there is substantial variation in various months and in respect of various manufacturers of MS ingots/billets in electricity consumption required for the quantum of goods produced, which is abnormal. The A.O. has also noted substantial variation in yield and shortages during various months in the years under appeal. (5) The decision in the case of ACIT Vs. SRJ Peety Steels Pvt. Ltd./Shree Om Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 137 TTJ 627 (Pune) has been relied on by the appellant. The facts before the Hon'ble ITAT while deciding the said cases were "Afferent to some extent. In the said cases, clandestine removal of goods by the appellant and the admission of the appellant about the said fact of unaccounted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the crucial evidentiary findings have been noted in the cases of the applicants including the appellant. The said findings in the case of - the appellant are as under - "(a) Cost of electricity and raw material shown to be 125% of selling price of ingots. (b) Sanctioned auxiliary load was only 7. 8% of the total sanctioned load but claimed to be 25% by appellant in statement; (c) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)' confirmed net addition of Income of Rs. 23.5 lakhs on account of suppressed production of ingots for assessment years 2001 -02 to 2006-07. (d) Clandestine clearance for specific case admitted before Settlement Commission. Similar observations have been made by the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal in the case of other manufacturers. The Hon'ble CESTAT has also taken support of decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Alagappa Cement Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CEGAT & CCE, Trichy (2010-TIOL-770-HC-MAD-CX) and held that the Revenue cannot be faulted for demanding duty on the steel ingots which could have been manufactured by consuming excess quantity of electricity. The Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....DGCEI). 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in confirming the suppression of sales of Rs. 13,01,57,459/- on the basis of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad wherein they have relied on the consumption of electricity vis-a-vis production on the basis of an article written by Dr. N. K. Batra, Professor of IIT, Kanpur i.e. on presumption and assumption and without any evidence of purchase of raw material or sales of finished products out of books. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in confirming the alleged suppression of production on the grounds of monthly variation in consumption of electricity vis-a-vis production. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in holding that the books of accounts of the appellant company are correctly rejected u/s. 145 of the Income Tax Act without any evidence or finding as to how the provisions of Section 145(3) are satisfied. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) and the Paper Book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions relied on by both the sides. We find identical issue had come up before the Tribunal in the case of Bhagyalaxmi Steel Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT and vice versa in ITA Nos.284 to 286/PN/2012 and ITA Nos. 437 to 439/PN/2012 and other group of cases vide consolidated order dated 15-07-2015 where both of us are parties. We find the Tribunal considering the arguments advanced by both the sides deleted the addition made on account of erratic consumption of electricity and the alleged investment in the purchase for effecting such unaccounted sales. The appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the application of GP rate and allowance of expenses are also dismissed by the Tribunal. The relevant observation of the Tribunal from para 17 onwards reads as under : "17. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The Ld. AR for the assessee filed argument synopsis and Ld. Spl. AR for the Revenue also has filed notes of his argument which are placed on record. We have also considered all the precedents and decisions r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....M.S. Verma, Ld. CIT-DR and Shri Rajesh Damor, Ld. Addl.CIT-DR were present in the Court. Thereafter, other cases which were to be argued by the Ld. CIT-DR and Ld. Addl.CIT-DR were taken up for hearing and the matters in ITA Nos.125, 127, 430 & 431/PN/2012 along with ITA No.1525/PN/2012, ITA No.1476/PN/2012, ITA Nos.179 to 182/PN/2012, ITA Nos.656 to 659/PN/2012, ITA No.1084/PN/2012, ITA No.1468/PN/2012, ITA No.1558/PN/2012, ITA No.1629/PN/2012, ITA No.1516/PN/2012 and ITA No.1638/PN/2012 were heard. All the other appeals are adjourned to 08.05.2015 as part heard. 20. On 08.05.2015, on calling of the matters, we find that the Ld. Special AR is not present in the Court room and there is no intimation about his absence in the bunch of matters, which are listed for hearing. The CIT-DR was present and was asked to explain his absence. In reply she stated that she had no intimation. In view of continued defiance of the Ld. Special AR in yesterday's hearing and his non-appearance in today's hearing, conduct of the Ld. Special AR is to be taken note of. The CIT-DR was informed in the Bench as to why costs should not be imposed on the Department for his continued defiance and for i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....before us are relatable to the addition made on account of alleged suppression of production and evasion of duty on account of erratic consumption of electricity. 25. Now, we are coming to the merits of the issue raised before us. We have heard this bunch of appeals where different issues are raised i.e. in some cases where the assessment is completed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 148 of the Act, the assessee has raised the issue against re-opening of assessment, non-supply of reasons for re-opening under section 147 and also non-service of notice under section 143(2) after recording of reasons under section 147 of the Act. However, in some cases, the assessment has been completed under section 143(3) of the Act and there are no issues against re-opening of the assessment. The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee in the present bunch of appeals relating to Bhagyalaxmi Steel Alloys Pvt. Ltd. at the outset stated that the grounds of appeal Nos.1, 2 and 10 in relation to re-opening of the assessment under section 147 and non-supply of reasons for re-opening under section 147 of the Act, are not pressed. Hence the same are dismissed as not pressed. 26. The nex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itions in the hands of present set of assesses before us. 28. The Tribunal had elaborately considered all the aspects of addition in the hands of the furnace owners i.e. M/s. SRJ Peety Steels Pvt. Ltd., on the basis of erratic consumption of electricity, which in turn, was the basis for making the additions in the hands of the assessee therein by CCE, Aurangabad and vide order dated 16.01.2015 held that since the order of the CCE, Aurangabad has been overruled by the Third Member of CESTAT, there was no basis for addition in the hands of the assessee. The other aspects of the issue that the assessee therein had made the petition before Settlement Commission in respect of clandestine removal of material without payment of Excise duty, was also considered by the Tribunal and in the absence of any inquiry / investigation or material collected by the Assessing Officer, the Tribunal held that there was no merit in any addition in the hands of the assessee in assessment year 2007-08. Further, in assessment year 2008-09, there was no admission of any clandestine removal of material without payment of Excise duty before the Settlement Commission and in the absence of any other inq....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....um of production declared by the assessee. The Assessing Officer, therefore, made the addition on the basis of the alleged suppression of the production/sales by the assessee as in his opinion the assessee should have declared or shown more production of the Ingot/Billets. Subsequently, on the basis of the information received from the office of the CCE, Aurangabad vide their letter dated 29-03-2010 as well as adjudication order of CCE quantifying the value of alleged suppressed production and alleged evasion of excise duty, the Assessing Officer initiated the re-assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2007-08 against the assessee company u/s. 147 of the Act. In reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer while issuing the notice to the assessee company u/s. 147 for A.Y. 2007-08 the Assessing Officer gave reference of the communication and order of the CCE Aurangabad received from the Central Excise office at Aurangabad. 14. The Assessing Officer has also referred to one matter in respect of the action conducted by DGCE (Intelligence) against the few brokers and subbrokers who were involved in the trading into the Ingot/Billets and TMT Bars. The Assessing Officer also referred to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by those brokers as well as sub-brokers namely Shri Umesh Modi, Mumbai, Shri Anil D Lingade, Shri Mukesh Gupta it was admitted that they were involved in clearing the consignments from the factory on weighment slips only and no excise duty was paid and they were involved in providing fake trading bills and challans which accompanied the vehicles carrying those consignments. As per the modus operandi adopted by the brokers they used to recover the said fake trading bills and challans after the goods reached their destination. As noted by the Assessing Officer those brokers/sub-brokers also admitted that the entire evidence was destroyed by them and they used to get the commission of Rs. 100/- per MT. The Assessing Officer has discussed the information gathered by the DGCEI, Zonal Unit, Mumbai in Para Nos. 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6 & 2.7 of the assessment order. So far as action against the brokers and subbrokers are concerned the Central Excise Authority issued show cause to the assessee as well as the other manufacturers who were involved in clearing the excisable goods without payment of duty. All the manufacturers of the Ingots/Billets and TMT Bars were based in Jalna and the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onge Iron" is used as an input, the electricity requirement varies from 815 to 1046 units. The Assessing Officer, therefore, came to the conclusion that the assessment framed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Custom, Aurangabad in respect of the alleged suppression of production after considering the electricity consumption declared by the assessee and the production rate of units of electricity per metric ton adopted by the CCE, Aurangabad are very much reasonable, fair and justified and he adopted the same for the purpose of calculation of alleged unaccounted production of finished goods (Para No. 4.3 of the assessment order). 17. The Assessing Officer also rejected the books of account of the assessee u/s. 145(3) of the Income-tax Act by giving the reason that the assessee has not given the true and correct picture. The Assessing Officer adopted the suppression of production determined by the CCE, Aurangabad as per his adjudication order and held that the assessee has suppressed the production and accordingly, worked the suppressed production of the A.Y. 2007-08 as under: A.Y. Suppressed Production M.T. Rate per M.T. Rs. Assessable Value of Suppresse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee is placed at Page Nos. 122 to 174 of the P/B-I. The CCE, Aurangabad has observed that during the scrutiny of electricity bills, it was noticed that the substantial amount of expenditure has incurred by the assessee towards the cost of power consumption (Primary input). He has further observed that from the scrutiny of the various records, the cost of production is much more than cost of sale value, leaving no room for other major expenses like stores, wages, salaries, cost of maintenance etc. The Ld. Commissioner has referred to the study conducted by the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Kanpur and has observed that as per the said "Technical Opinion Report" the consumption of electricity for manufacture of one metric ton of steel ingots varies between 555 to 1026 electricity units depending upon the thermal efficiency, electricity efficiency and nature of mix of raw material. As observed by the Ld. CCE in the case of the assessee as per their electricity bills, the average consumption of electricity for manufacture of 1 MT of MS Ingots varies from 1454 to 1856 units. 19.1 He relying on the Technical report of IIT, Kanpur the Ld. Commissioner observed that on calcu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w of the discussion in Para 32 to 68 above and in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Triveni Rubber & Plastics (supra) and this Tribunal's decision in the case of Rattan Steels Works (supra), Nagpal Steel (supra) and Hans Castings Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the impugned order are to be upheld and all the appeals dismissed. 19.3 The Ld. Third Member of the CESTAT concurred with the finding of the Hon'ble Vice-President that the order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Central Excise and Custom, Aurangabad was not sustainable and has to be cancelled. The operative part of the order of the Third Member is as under: "20. It is also seen that the Hon'ble Vice President correctly opined that the judgment in R.A. Casting (supra) is squarely applicable in the facts of the instant appeals. In R.A, Casting the electricity consumption was 2072 to 2443 units per MT, which is higher than the average electricity consumption in the instant appeals. 20.1 The Commissioner in the orders impugned in the instant appeals was having the following reports and clarifications for his consideration- (i). 555 to 1046 units PMT as per Dr. Batra's....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....un conducted by the department had proved that at that time power consumption was actually higher than that reported in Dr. Batra's report. 20.4 It is also seen that the allegations levelled in R,A, Casting (supra) were mainly- (i). Inordinately high electricity consumption without any explanation, (ii). Sale of Ingots at a huge loss over last 4-5 years, which was economically and commercially not possible, (iii). generation of fictitious profits in the balance sheets by depositing huge amount of cash with the stock brokers and receiving cheques of profits against the cash so deposited, (iv). Claim of High Auxiliary load of about 35%, However the Tribunal in categorical terms held that no demand can be upheld based on electricity consumption as such because the clandestine manufacture and removal of excisable goods is to be proved by tangible, direct, affirmative and incontrovertible evidences relating to- (i). Receipt of raw material inside the factory premises, and non-accounting thereof in the statutory records; (ii). Utilization of such raw material for clandestine manufacture of finished goods; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad been directed to carry out experiments in different factories on different dates to arrive at the average to be adopted as a norm, which can be followed thereafter and the Revenue in the present case not having conducted any experiment whatsoever cannot be permitted to justify the demands raised. It will be appropriate on the part of the Revenue to conduct experiments in the factory of the appellants and others and that too on different dates to adopt the test results as the basis to arrive at a norm, which can be adopted for future. The impugned demand based merely on assumptions and presumptions cannot, therefore, be sustained nor could be justified both on facts and in law. 24. The law is well settled that in every case of alleged clandestine removal, the onus is on the Revenue to prove what it alleges with positive and concrete evidence. In the absence of any positive evidence brought by the Revenue to discharge its onus, the impugned order cannot be sustained." 20.8 In the present appeals, none of the so called other evidences referred in the impugned Orders prove clandestine clearance. The primary evidence of department is admittedly excess electricity co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, there is no such reason to discard the report and in any event the letter of Mr. R.P. Varshney suggesting that electric consumption in induction furnace can be upto 1800 units per MT is also on record. Since, varying reports are on record, the ratio of R.A. Casting (sura) is squarely applicable. 23. Revenue, also relied On the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Melton India V/s. The Commissioner Trade Tax, U.P, - 2007-TIOL-14-SC-CT, the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajmoti Industries V/s. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, 2014-TIOL-203-HC-AHM-IT, and an unreported order dtd. 28/9/2010 of Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Tribunal (Visakhapatnam Bench) in the case of Venkata Raimana Stone Crushers Company V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh. In the case of Melton India (supra), for the norm, of power consumption, actual electricity consumption of the assessment year 2000-01 was taken as 'norm' and the same was applied in subsequent assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03.This was followed by the Sales Tax Tribunal in the order cited by Revenue. In the case of Rajmoti Industries, facts of the case are that for the assessment yea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... if in the A.Y. 2008-09, the Assessing Officer has observed that the information received from the Central Excise Authorities has no bearing in the said order but on the perusal of the said order, it is seen that entire order is copy of order passed for the A.Y. 2007-08. As vary basis of the assessment order i.e. the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (CCE), Aurangabad has been set aside and cancelled by the CESTAT, in our opinion the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) approving the estimated alleged suppression of the production/sales have no legal legs to stand." 31. The Tribunal thereafter, dealt with the arguments of Ld. Special AR that even the minority decision of Ld. Technical Member of CESTAT was a legal order. This plea of the Ld. Special AR was rejected by the Tribunal in view of the decision of Third Member of the CESTAT. 32. Another objection raised by the Ld. Special AR was with reference to the order of Settlement Commission passed in the case of set of companies. The Tribunal noted that the CCE, Aurangabad in its order had taken into consideration the said material while determining the value o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the course of investigation made by the DGCEI. 34. The second issue of maintaining of Form No.G-7 in respect of electricity consumption, was also before the CESTAT and the Tribunal overruled the arguments of the Ld. Special AR and upheld the arguments of learned Authorized Representative for the assessee that the order of CESTAT had to be applied. The relevant para of the Tribunal order reads as under:- "21. Though the Ld. Spl. AR has referred to and relied on the different judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court more particularly on the binding nature of the 'admission' of any person-Sec. 17, Sec. 106 and Sec. 115 of the Indian Evidence Act etc. but the fact remains that in the case of the present assessee no independent investigation is made by the Revenue but the entire assessments are framed on the basis of the information received from the Central Excise Department as well as the adjudication order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad. Moreover, as observed above the adjudication Order passed by the CCE, Aurangabad has been cancelled by the CESTAT, Mumbai by majority opinion and hence, foundation of assessments for A. Yrs. 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on various factors and there was no justification to charge the assessee that it had suppressed the production and indulged into unaccounted production. The order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Department before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed by common order dated 10.02.2014 in the case of assessee and other companies by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and there were observations on the estimation of production based on the consumption of electricity. The Tribunal while deciding the appeal of M/s. SRJ Peety Steels Pvt. Ltd. in this regard observed as under:- "22. We have already mentioned here-in-above that in the case of the assesse, the search and seizure operation was carried out u/s. 132(1) of the Income-tax Act on 17-03-2006 and accordingly the assessment orders for the A.Ys. 2000-01 to 2006-07 were framed u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer rejected the books of account of the assessee for the A.Ys. 2000-01 to 2006-07 and one of the reasons was that alleged suppressed production which was computed on the basis of consumption of the electricity. The Assessing Officer devised a formula on the basis of el....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 32. The matter of fluctuating consumption of electricity can by no means be said to be a finding of search since all details regarding electricity vis-a-vis production were before the Department. If the Department had any doubts regarding the same, it could have been raised during the regular assessments and not in the assessment proceedings under s. 153A of the Act. When nothing incriminating was found in the course of search relating to any of these assessment years, the assessments for such years could not be disturbed on this ground. 33. In view of above factual and legal position we find that the additions in question in asst. yrs. 2000-01 to 2005-06 are not corresponding to the seized material found during the course of search. The relevant IT returns for said years were filed prior to the search in normal course disclosing the particulars of subject-matters were already on record. The returns have already been accepted and no assessment as such could be said to be pending on the date of initiation of search and abated in light of the provisions of s. 153A. 34. Without prejudice to above, with regard to invoking the provisions of s. 145 of the Act, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tected during the course of assessment pertains to the asst. yrs. 2000-01 to 2005-06. It is an accepted fact that each year of the assessment is independent and evidences found relating to asst. yr. 2006-07 cannot have an adverse impact on the assessments of the assessee company from the asst. yrs. 2000-01 to 2005-06. Therefore, rejection of books for these years purely on the ground that there has been divergence in the consumption of electricity and application of s. 144 is not at all justified. Accordingly additions have rightly been deleted in asst. yrs. 2000-01 to 2005-06 in both the cases. 23. It is clear from the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in the search and seizure matter as it is held that the consumption of electricity for the manufacturing of mild steel ingots/billets depends on various factors and there was no justification to charge the assessee that the assessee has suppressed the production and indulged into unaccounted production. The order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Department before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad by filing the appeal u/s. 260A of the Income-tax Act, being Tax Appeal No. 30 of 2011. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... divergence in the consumption of electricity, therefore, was held not justified." 24. Ld. Spl. AR for the Revenue argues that the said observations are made in the context of the assessment framed in consequence of search and seizure operation. We are not inclined to accept the argument of the Ld. Spl AR for the reason that even if the assessments are framed in consequence of the search and seizure operation but the important fact remains that nothing was found during the course of search except few loose sheets found in the residence of the Director to make out a case against the assessee for alleged suppression of production or sales. It is also to be taken note of the fact that in A.Ys. 2007-08 and 2008-09, no investigation has been done by the Revenue which are immediate next assessment years after the search and seizure operation against the assessee company and hence, in our opinion above findings and observation of the Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble High Court are also important to decide the present appeals more particularly on the additions based on consumption of electricity." 37. The Tribunal vide para 24 took note of the fact that in assessment y....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd cogent evidence had been brought to record to prove output cleared clandestinely. No cogent evidence is on record to show either suppression of purchase of input or clandestine removal of goods in fool proof manner known to law for which, it can be painfully said that the adjudication has no legs to stand. Both the appeals are therefore, allowed with consequential relief, if any." 11. The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal categorically held that the electricity consumption could not be criteria to determine the output laid down in R.A. Castings, where the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as reported in 2011 (269) ELT A-108 (SC). The basis for the addition in the present case was the investigation report of the Central Excise Department and the suppression in production calculated by the said Investigating Team. The Assessing Officer had completely based its addition on the aforesaid report of the Investigating Team and had also show caused the assessee to establish its point in view of the said report of the Investigating Team. The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (supra) in the appeal filed by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hands of the assessee. The Tribunal also gave a finding that since the additions made in the hands of the assessee have been deleted, there was no merit in any addition on account of undisclosed investment in respect of the undisclosed turnover. The Tribunal vide paras 27 to 29 held as under:- "27. The next issue is the rejection of books of account by the Assessing Officer in both the assessment years. We find that the only reason for rejection of the books of account was the alleged suppression of production/sales and which was determined on the basis of the adjudication order passed by the CCE, Aurangabad as well as the consumption of the electricity used in the manufacturing of the Ingots/Billets relying on the technical opinion of Dr. Batra, IIT, Kanpur. No other reasons are given by the Assessing Officer. We have already held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the additions towards alleged suppression of production/sales. We, therefore, hold that the rejection of the books of account on above reason cannot be upheld. We, accordingly, allow Ground No. 7 in the A.Y. 2007-08 and Ground No. 5 in the A.Y. 2008-09. 28. The next issue is the per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re was no investigation by the DGCEI and further there was no order of Settlement Commission. However, the CCE, Aurangabad had passed an order against the assessee, but there was no case of clandestine removal of materials without payment of Excise duty against the assessee. The Ld. Special AR admitted that there was no evidence with the Excise Department or the Income-tax Department regarding clandestine removal of materials without payment of Excise duty. However, because of huge fluctuation in electricity consumption and production of ingots / billets, addition was made in the hands of the assessee. However, in Omsairam Steel & Alloys Pvt. Ltd., it was fairly admitted by the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee that there was investigation by the DGCEI and in assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, the assessee had filed the petition before the Settlement Commission, which was accepted. However, in assessment years 2005-06 and 2008-09, there was no such petition filed before the Settlement Commission. 41. We find that the Assessing Officer in the present case before us had made the addition on account of erratic consumption of electricity based on the report....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s is that where the Assessing Officer had evidence of clandestine removal of material without payment of Excise duty, the addition could be upheld in the hands of the assessee by extrapolating the sales for period of 300 days. The Ld. Special AR for the said proposition relied on the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case relating to assessment year 2006-07. The case of the Revenue before us was that where the assessee had admitted to clandestine removal of material without payment of Excise duty before the Settlement Commission for part of the period, then in view of the order of the Settlement Commission and also since the assessee had admitted to additional income on such account before the Assessing Officer, the sales for the entire year should be extrapolated. The basis for declaration of clandestine removal of material without payment of Excise duty was on account of search and seizure proceedings conducted by DGCEI on certain brokers and sub-brokers. Consequent thereto, Shri SRJ Peety, Managing Director of M/s. SRJ Peety Steels Pvt. Ltd. admitted to the said clandestine removal of material without payment of Excise duty and approached the Settlement Commission for p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee. In order to buy peace of mind, the assessee declared the said amount vide petition before the Settlement Commission, which has been accepted by the Settlement Commission in toto. The Ld. Special AR objected to the plea of assessee that declaration was to buy peace of mind, but we find no merit in the same, since the object of moving petition before the Settlement Commission is to settle the dispute. In cases where any settlement petition is moved by the claimants, the authorities have the power to re-visit the offer made by the claimant and where any adverse material is available against the person making the offer, then the figures of settlement can be increased. However, in the case of the assessee, offer of the assessee has been accepted for the financial year and the same cannot be said to be restricted to the number of days for which it was offered. The basis of any settlement is the offer made by the claimant and/or the evidence found against the person offering the settlement and where the evidence has been found for part of the year, such settlement being accepted is relatable to the year under consideration. In cases where the petition is accepted in the hands of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reflects no such basis was adopted for making the addition in the hands of the assessee. The sole basis on which the addition in the hands of the assessee made was on account of erratic consumption of electricity. Undoubtedly, both the aspects i.e. the petition made by the assessee before the Settlement Commission pursuant to search conducted by the DGCEI and also the other basis i.e. erratic consumption of electricity, were before the Assessing Officer. However, the Assessing Officer adopted the second issue in the hands of the assessee and made the aforesaid addition, which we in the paras hereinabove had already deleted. The Ld. Special AR pointed out that the said action of the Assessing Officer was one of the methodologies for working out the additional income of the assessee. We find no merit in the stand of the Ld. Special AR since no investigation or inquiry was carried out by the Assessing Officer and merely on the basis of petition filed before the Settlement Commission, which in turn has been accepted, no further addition can be made in the hands of the assessee in the absence of any incriminating material found for the balance period. 47. Reliance in this rega....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g Officer and CIT(A) and the Tribunal cannot traverse beyond the orders of Assessing Officer and CIT(A). Admittedly, the parties can raise an additional plea before the Tribunal justifying the addition. However, the said plea has to be decided keeping in mind the facts of the case. Though both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) had not made the addition in the hands of the assessee on the basis of petition filed before the Settlement Commission, but had adopted the erratic consumption of electricity as basis to make the addition, we have adjudicated the alternate plea raised by the Ld. Special AR in this regard and dismissed the same. 51. Now, we come to the reliance placed upon by both the Authorized Representatives in support of individual proposition vis-à-vis the addition on account of extrapolation of sales for the period of 300 days. 52. The Ld. Special AR further relied on series of decisions under the Excise authorities for the proposition that the confessional statement before the Excise Department was an important piece of evidence. We are in agreement with the said proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ected by the Central Excise authority during their search operations. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is purely based on guess work, presumption and surmises and not on the basis of any material found during the course of search operation carried out by the Central Excise authorities. Such addition based on hypothetical calculation of turnover and estimation of GP on presumption and surmises were not sustainable. The Tribunal distinguished the ratio laid down in CST Vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (supra). The Ld. Special AR relied on the said decision and in view of the decision of coordinate Bench on similar issue as before us, we find no merit in the reliance placed upon by the Ld. Special AR. 56. The Ld. Special AR during the course of arguments before the Tribunal in Miscellaneous Application filed in M/s. SRJ Peety Steels Pvt. Ltd. vide MA No.17/PN/2015 had raised the issue of extrapolation of sales for 300 days in view of the assessee having admitted to clandestine removal of material without payment of Excise duty and thereafter, filing a petition before the Settlement Commission. 57. The plea of the Revenue raised in the Miscellaneous....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he previous year required to be assessed under regular assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that such regular assessment stands on a different footing in contrast to the exercise undertaken by the Assessing Officer under Chapter XIV-B, where the Assessing Officer had to assess only the undisclosed income. However, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court further held that under Chapter XIV-B, the Assessing Officer cannot estimate the undisclosed income on an arbitrary basis. We find no merit in the plea raised by the Ld. Special AR in this regard as the facts of the said case are different from the facts of the present case. 42. Even on merits, the Revenue has no case against the assessee. The reliance placed upon by the Ld. Special AR on the ratio laid down in assessee's own case relating to assessment year 2006-07 is misplaced as the addition in the hands of the assessee in that year was made on account of search and seizure operations carried out by the Income-tax Department, wherein sales outside books were found for few days. However, no independent investigation / inquiry by the Income-tax Department has been made before completing asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id facts and circumstances, we hold that no extrapolation of sales for 300 days can be made in the hands of the assessee on the basis of the evidence found for clandestine removal of material without payment of Excise duty for few days, which in turn, has been admitted by the assessee by way of filing petition before the Settlement Commission, which in turn, has also been accepted by the Settlement Commission. Merely because the Settlement Commission accepted the claim of the assessee of additional Excise duty payable on the said clandestine removal of material without payment of Excise duty does not establish the case of the Revenue that the said figures of additional production should be utilized for extrapolating the sales in the hands of the assessee for the entire year. Admittedly, the assessee had offered additional income on the said clandestine removal of material without payment of Excise duty, which is to be added as income in the hands of the assessee. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee fairly admitted that in case the said additional income has not been added while computing the income in the hands of the assessee for the respective years, the same m....