Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2022 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 864 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine Removal - mild steel ingots from sponge iron - pig iron - cast iron and scrap evidenced by disproportionate consumption of raw material and energy - corroborative evidences or not - preponderance of probability - HELD THAT:- In the absence of any supporting evidence, it would appear that the duty leviability on manufacture is sought to be imposed on seeming inefficiency in the production process. There is also no escapement from the factual determination of the trial production in two shifts conducted under the aegis of central excise authorities. The backbone of quasi-judicial determination by preponderance of probability fails at the precipice of the trial production to afford a leap of rational inference which no extent of dogma can bridge. The failure to maintain prescribed records are no less attributable to the lack of monitorial oversight prescribed under Central Excise Rules, 2002 than the probability of having been suppressed to disable investigations into possible evasion of duty. That mutual disregard of obligation cannot be the bedrock for presuming clandestine removals by application of formulae - there is nothing on record to indicate that the shortage of raw materials pertains to the period of the impugned demand or that scrap had been procured from unknown sources. These remain as blanks in the jigsaw puzzle assembled by the adjudicating authority to confirm the demands proposed in the respective show cause notices. There is no explanation forthcoming in the impugned orders for discarding of the energy consumption determined during the trial production except to cast doubts by relying upon reports that, admittedly, did not test the furnace deployed by the appellant-assessee - the singular continuity of adjudicatory evaluation from the earlier period, discarded by the Tribunal in the appeal of the very same assessee and individual, to the present demand, the impugned order is bereft of sufficient facts and evidence to be sustained in appellate proceeding. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|