Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1516 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal - manufacture of LABSA (90% of Acid Slurry), main product and spent Sulphuric Acid emerges as by-product - suppression of quantum of production of LABSA (Acid Slurry) in respect of their own finished goods - demand based on input-output ratio - period from April, 2010 to March, 2011 - HELD THAT:- In production for the period 2010-11, LABSA 90% produced is 34832 tons. Besically, in their allegation, Revenue has accepted the yield of 1.47 for conversion job whereas they have defined the same as chemical process without any basis, which has been used for their own production and are being used for years together. Also, in the case of conversion job undertaken by the appellant, the raw materials received from M/s A.R. Stanchem Pvt. Ltd. in terms of the provisions of Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 were converted into LABSA and by product Spent Sulphuric Acid and were returned to the said company as per the purchase orders placed on the appellant. M/s A.R.Stanchem Pvt. Ltd. received such goods in their factory and entered them in their DSA and paid duty at the time of clearance of such goods from their factory. It is pertinent to mention that the finished goods, LABSA and Spent Sulphuric Act are of same quality and the processing tank is also common in factory as it is not possible to manufacture goods separately. On analyzing total consumption of LAB and Sulphuric Acid during the material period and the ratio of LAB to LABSA 90% and ratio of Spent Sulphuric Act, it would be evident that while the ratio of LABSA 90% to LAB is 1:1.47, the ratio of Spent Sulphuric Act to Sulphuric Act was 1:0.82 and 1:0.81 in respect of own manufacture and conversion job respectively. Thus, there is hardly any difference between in respect of own manufacture and conversion job - It is also pertinent to mention that the Department has mistaken the production of Spent Acid to be the production of excess Acid Slurry and has proceeded on the erroneous assumption that appellant herein has manufactured excess quantity of Acid Slurry and clandestinely removed the same. The demand stands confirmed against the appellant on the findings of clandestine removal of main finished goods (LABSA), which in turn, is based upon input output ratio. This is the case of the Department that the appellants have deliberately shows more quantity of spent sulphuric acid and more clearance of spent acid. Further the cases of clandestine removal cannot be built on the input-output ratio as has been held by the Tribunal in a number of decisions. Thus, apart from the input output ratio, there is no evidence on record to show clandestine manufacture and clearance of the goods. Such cases are required to be established beyond doubt on the basis of concrete and positive evidences - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|