2024 (3) TMI 276

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Central Excise (Appeals) - II, Mumbai and disposed off in this common proceedings, is the fastening of duty liability of Rs. 42,96,130 and Rs. 9,87,632, for April 2006 to December 2010 and for January 2011 to December 2011 respectively, under section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944, along with attendant penalty under section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944, besides imposition of penalty of like amount under section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 is the correctness of such levy on the ground of 'process loss' being excessive. It is seen from the records that the proceedings were initiated owing to yield of 79% on deployment of 228584 kgs of raw materials in 2006-07 for production of 146295 kgs of finished product leaving 48002 kgs unexpl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....put norms fixed by the DGFT, it is 13%. Here I observe that the rules governing for DGFT is to grant drawback and other Customs benefits. These rules cannot be uniformally applied for deciding process loss in the manufacturing units. The appellants have given details of process loss in their Dombivli unit. But what is essential is the details of process in their industry for comparison with the appellants claim. In the absence of any evidence to support of the appellants claim, the appeal cannot be allowed. In support of my above views I refer to the following case laws : (i) Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Rutvi Steel & Alloys as reported in 2009 (243) ELT 154 (Tri-Ahmd) observed that "Cenvat/Modvat - Inputs -Process Loss - Onus is o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ccepted by the Dy. Collector - Clandestine removal when alleged of goods manufactured by using raw materials which was reflected by the shortage noticed of such raw material, there cannot be complete corroborative evidence to support the shortage - Clandestine removal established - Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944". In the instant case, the appellants have failed to produce evidence in support of their claim.' 5. We find that appellant had deployed various raw materials in different proportions for manufacture of finished goods. The lower authorities, without considering the material mix and reaction loss of each separately, have merely presumed that weight of raw materials should be found to match that of finished goods and tha....