Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2022 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 452 - HC - Central ExciseDemand of central excise duty along with interest and penalty - Annual Dispatch Summary being an authorized Official record prepared by the respondent company for the purpose of management information and accounting purpose not appreciated - respondent failed to produce any document that M/s. ACC, DCSL is a subsidiary to the respondent Company then inclusion of clearance figures of an independent central Excise assessee i.e. M/s. ACC, DCSL, in the official Annual Dispatch summary maintained by the respondent company/assessee - provisions of Rules 4, 6 and 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 or not - HELD THAT:- The order passed by the appellant impugned before the Tribunal is a non-speaking order. Substantial portion of the order has been devoted by the appellant to reject the contention of the respondent that they are bona fide assessee and Government of India Enterprise. The reply given by the assessee that there is nothing to indicate to establish the allegation that the ‘ new plant’ belongs to the respondent and they were the manufacturer of the granulated slag and without rendering any finding on the same, the proposal in show cause notice has been confirmed. The Tribunal noted that the Central Excise Duty has been demanded by the appellant on the sole ground of difference between the quantity of the granulated slag shown in the Annual Operational Statistical Report and the quantity shown in the monthly ER-1 return filed for the period July 2004 to March, 2008. Apart from that there is no evidence of removal of goods from the factory. Thus the Tribunal noted that the show cause notice came to be issued solely based upon the difference in the two statements - The respondent explained that during the relevant period, respondent had one granulation plant which was called old plant, one plant was set up by M/s. ACC, DCSL which is in the factory premises of the respondent which was shown as ‘new plant’ in certain records and that the granulated slag emerging from this plant were cleared on payment of duty. Thus noting these facts, the Tribunal was satisfied with the explanation offered and also took note of an important fact that duty has been paid by M/s. ACC, DCSL with granulated slag, which has been recorded in the order passed by the Commissioner and there is no dispute with the said fact. The Tribunal rightly granted relief to the respondent considering the factual position and we find that no question of law arises for consideration in this appeal - the appeal fails and dismissed.
|