9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Discrepancy in working hours of cement mill leading to duty evasion and penalty imposition. Analysis: The case involved an appeal by M/s. Central Construction & Engg. Co. Ltd. against an order passed by the ld. Addl. Collector, where discrepancies in the working hours of the cement mill were identified. The Collector demanded duty and imposed a penalty based on the differences found. The appellant was accused of manipulating working hours, leading to the suppression of cement production and evasion of Central Excise duty. The appellant argued that the method of calculating cement production was based on predetermined ratios and factors affecting mill efficiency, such as the quality of clinker and grinding media. They contended that the discrepancies in working hours were due to voltage fluctuations and meter inaccuracies, challenging the Collector's findings of clandestine removal or disproportionate raw material usage. On the other hand, the respondent argued that the production of the mill is directly related to its working hours, highlighting discrepancies between private records and production slips as evidence of underreporting. The lower authorities supported the duty demand and penalty imposition based on these discrepancies. After considering both sides, the Tribunal observed inconsistencies in the working hours recorded in the log book, production slips, and hour meter of the cement mill. The Tribunal noted that there was no concrete evidence of clandestine removal or disproportionate raw material usage, emphasizing the lack of consistency in the discrepancies found. Referring to a previous judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering various factors affecting production and the limitations of calculating averages in such cases. They concluded that the duty demand based on presumed production was not sustainable due to insufficient evidence of actual suppression or removal of cement. However, the Tribunal upheld the penalty imposition due to the existence of two sets of timings for the mill's operation, one for production records and the other for mill operation. Despite modifying the duty demand, the Tribunal maintained the penalty but did not alter its quantum. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the duty demand but upheld the penalty imposition, disposing of the appeal accordingly.
|
