2025 (7) TMI 409

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... dated 28.9.2020 issued by the Principal Commissioner. He confirmed demand of excise duty of Rs.5,27,98,220/- under section 11A on the Central Excise Act, 1944 [Excise Act] invoking extended period of limitation along with interest under section 11AA of the Excise Act and imposed an equal amount of penalty under section 11AC of the Excise Act. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned authorised representative for the Revenue and perused the records. 3. The appellant manufactures alcohol and Carbon-di-oxide (as a byproduct) from molasses which it procures from sugar factories. Alcohol (except denatured alcohol) is subject to state excise duty and is not exigible to central excise duty. Molasses is subject to cen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... as it stood prior to the publication of this notification, he shall be allowed to obtain registration and comply with the provisions of these rules within a period of thirty days from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), where molasses are produced in a khandsari sugar factory, the person who procures such molasses, whether directly from such factory or otherwise, for use in the manufacture of any commodity, whether or not excisable, shall pay the duty leviable on such molasses, in the same manner as if such molasses have been produced by the procurer. ******* 5. The SCN proposed and the impugned order confirmed demand of duty under Excise Rule....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... procured molasses from khandsari sugar manufacturers, let alone any evidence in support. Even the statements of the appellant's officials recorded by the central excise officers and reflected in the SCN nowhere even indicate that any molasses was procured form Khandsari sugar manufacturers. Thus, the SCN does not even assert that the elements which make duty on molasses payable by the appellant existed. Had the Principal Commissioner who issued the SCN cared to read Excise Rule 4(2) or cared to look at the invoices under which the molasses was procured by the appellant, he would not have issued the SCN. As a senior, experienced officer, he should have known that the SCN issued without any basis is not even in the interest of Revenue becaus....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntitled to retain his possession. Therefore, the burden of proof is on A. (b) A sues B for money due on a bond. The execution of the bond is admitted, but B says that it was obtained by fraud, which A denies. If no evidence were given on either side, A would succeed, as the bond is not disputed and the fraud is not proved. Therefore, the burden of proof is on B. Section 103. Burden of proof as to particular fact. The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person. Illustration (a) A prosecutes B for theft, and wishes the Court to believe that B admitted th....