TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 519X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/- on alleged clandestine production and clearance of Iron and Steel Rerolled products including the penalties on Shri Murali imposed under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The main contention of the Revenue is that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not examined the evidence on record including the corroborative evidence pertaining to the suppression of production in the form of power consumption, cost of production, etc. as stated in the tabulated annexed to the show cause notice. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the other grounds taken in support of the order-in-original. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in Para 10 of his order has observed that it is not possible to consider the so called corroborative evidence of electric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clearances. He submits that this matter is required to go back to the Additional Commissioner for de novo consideration to re-assess the matter in the light of the Hon ble Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Triveni Rubber Plastics v. CCE reported in 1994 (73) E.L.T. 7 (S.C.) wherein the Apex court held that demand raised on the basis of the electricity consumed and confirmed by the Collector and the Tribunal cannot be faulted at and the same is required to be confirmed. 3. Appearing on behalf of the Respondents, ld. Counsel Shri N. Venkatraman opposed the prayer for remand and submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) order is totally correct and proper. He submits that the Commissioner has gone through all the citations, record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 194 M.Ts. He also refers to the chart which is indicated in the show cause notice pertaining to the power consumption and submits that the Revenue has not quantified the demand on the basis of power consumption. Therefore, he submits that power consumption cannot be the sole basis for confirming the demand when the Revenue has not substantiated their case with regard to the receipt of raw materials and clearance of the final production of the excisable goods to any buyers. He submits that clandestine removal is not established and that the Revenue cannot base the case solely on one factor but has to produce conclusive evidence of receipt of raw materials, production, clearance of final product to discharge the allegation of clandestine remo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Bill Traders have not been sustained during the course of cross examination. For that reason the Commissioner has dropped the proceedings. Further I notice the Additional Commissioner has also recorded that the electricity consumption is not the main piece of evidence on which the allegations have been made. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also recorded that the electricity consumption cannot be considered as the only evidence to prove the case. On my referring the show cause notice and annexures, I notice that the appellants have not disputed the consumption of electricity to the extent of 11972620 units for the period March - April 94 and July - August, 1996. The Revenue has alleged that the said annexure shows that the production acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
