TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 468
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bi-Chromate. 2.2 Show-cause notice dated 17.04.2013 was issued for availment of excess cenvat credit on Sulphur during the period from April, 2008 to March, 2010. 2.3 The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 4,09,179/- and imposed equal penalty. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Original and rejected the appeal before him. Hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal. 3.1 The ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant, submits that the entire proceeding is on assumption and presumption. Standard formulas are only indicative and end-result may not always be the same and there are other circumstances, which are responsible like, age of the machine, condition of the tower, skillness of the workmen, qu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oard for the stand by Absorption Tower so that we can check the losses. The problem worsened from June 2008 and we were helpless as the production being continuous in nature, we were in no condition to control the leakages and manage to run the production. We got the NOC in January, 2010 and then we could try to change the Tower and tried to control the leakages. Hence, the Sulphur consumption which is based on the absorption efficiency of Tower could not be controlled." 3.2 It is the submission of the Ld. Advocate that the authorities below mechanically proceeded and followed the allegations as mentioned in the show-cause notice and passed the order confirming the demand without considering the Director's statement and no reasons were me....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l product. It is, therefore, clear that the show-cause notice was issued on the basis of presumption and therefore, the said show-cause notice is not sustainable. I find support from the following decisions of the Tribunal : (1) Eveready Industries Limited (cited supra) "5. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the demand sought to be recovered had been confirmed on the ground that the usage of inputs was in excess of that stipulated in the production norms. The contention made on behalf of the appellant that there is no allegation of illicit removal of inputs or non-receipt of the inputs is irrefutable. Taxation laws cannot be extended beyond the objectives laid down in the statute. The commercial viability and the market may dis....