2010 (8) TMI 138 - HC - Central Excise

Excessive use of electricity- Department raised the demand order against the assessee stating that there was clandestine production and removal of goods as per records of Electricity consumption. Court held that the allegation needs further corroborative evidence and set aside the order of the department.

Summary

Issues:
1. Excessive quantum of electricity consumption linked to production without further corroboration.
2. Whether the Tribunal's findings were perverse.
3. Justification of the Tribunal's observation on lack of corroborative evidence.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Excessive quantum of electricity consumption linked to production without further corroboration
The appeal in question was filed by the revenue under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, against an order passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The case involved allegations of clandestine removal based on disproportionate electricity consumption at the factory premises of the respondent, a manufacturer of MS Ingots. The Tribunal set aside the demand, noting that the only basis for the demand was the alleged disproportionate electricity consumption, without any other evidence to substantiate unaccounted production or clandestine removal. The Tribunal expressed doubts about the recorded production levels vis-`a-vis electricity consumption, highlighting the lack of corroborative evidence such as meter readings. The appellant contested the charges, citing factors affecting production like raw materials, labor, and electricity supply disruptions. The Tribunal emphasized that the serious allegations of suppression of production and clandestine removal could not be upheld solely based on excessive electricity usage, especially when disputed by the appellant.

Issue 2: Whether the Tribunal's findings were perverse
Upon review, the High Court observed that the Tribunal's finding was based solely on the disproportionate electricity consumption, which could have various explanations other than increased production. The Court noted that the department had the option to conduct further investigations to gather evidence supporting the allegations of increased production and clandestine removal. The Court agreed with the Tribunal that the inference of higher production solely based on electricity consumption was not justified. Consequently, the Court held that the Tribunal's finding was not perverse given the circumstances of the case.

Issue 3: Justification of the Tribunal's observation on lack of corroborative evidence
The High Court, after hearing the arguments from the revenue, examined the record and concurred with the Tribunal's assessment. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal's finding was reasonable as it highlighted the absence of additional evidence to support the allegations of increased production and clandestine removal. The Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose from the case and subsequently dismissed the appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to set aside the demand raised by the revenue, emphasizing the importance of substantial evidence and corroboration in cases involving allegations of clandestine activities based on disproportionate consumption patterns.