9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 933X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the manufacture of Sodium Silicate falling under Chapter Heading 28391100 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, 1985. During the course of audit of the records on the basis of input output ratio, it was alleged that they have shown less production of 3017 MT of finished goods. On being pointed out, the appellant debited the entire amount of duty. Later a show cause notice was issued to them proposing appropriation of central excise duty of Rs. 36,40,720/- already paid and recovery of interest along with proposal for penalty. On adjudication, the amount paid was appropriated and penalty of equal amount and interest were confirmed. Aggrieved by the said order, the Respondent filed appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te manufactured by using 1 kg of soda ash. I find that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) after analyzing the issue in detail rejected the Revenue s contention that during the aforesaid period, production of goods was suppressed and in turn cleared without payment of duty. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) recorded the findings as below: However, the argument that the input output ratio remained the same during the period merits consideration and was required to be verified. It was for the very purpose I have called for a report from the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner. To the specific question asked whether any subsequent demand was issued, the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner, by his letter No. V/2-02/Bhavani/Appeal/10-11 date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd thus not mulled about the possibility of raising demand for subsequent period alleging suppression of production on the basis of input-output ratio. Therefore applying the input-output ratio of the job worker to the appellant is not relevant at all and hence department s allegations are not sustainable. In the circumstances where the revenue is not able to establish the clandestine removal by adducing cogent and tangible evidences the argument of the appellant that he has not suppressed any production merits consideration. I find that in catena of decisions it is held that clandestine production and demand cannot be made on the basis of theoretical calculation and presumption by the department. 6. I do not find any discrepancy in the af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
