Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Neoli Sugar Factory vs Cce, Lucknow on 10 February, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066.
BENCH-SM
Excise Appeal Nos. E/3023/2007[SM]
[Arising out of Order in Appeal No.99-CE/LKO/2007 dated 31.7.2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Lucknow]
Neoli Sugar Factory Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Lucknow Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Shri.Raj Kumar, FCA Present for the Respondent: Shri.M.S. Negi, DR Coram:Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing/Decision: 10.02.2014 FINAL ORDER NO. 50558/2014 DATED: 10.02.2014 PER: ARCHANA WADHWA
After hearing both the sides, I find that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses. During the verification of records (by audit) it was noticed that the party has shown production of 15029 qtls. of brown sugar during sugar season 1999-2000 which has been reprocessed during sugar season 2000-2001. Production of brown sugar by the appellants during sugar season 1998-1999 & sugar shown by the appellant is abnormally high in compassion of other unit of the region/adjoining areas. Further it was noticed that the party issued brown sugar for reprocess in bulk quantity i.e. 2000 qtls. or more in a day for reprocessing which is quite abnormal. As per their plant capacity of 2500 TCD they can crust 25000 qtls of sugar cane in a day resulting in production of maximum quantity of 2500 qtls. of sugar & that too when the plant is operative and its optimum efficiency showing 10% recovery. It is not possible to melt and reprocess such a large quantity of brown sugar along with normal crushing of cane. Therefore, it is clear that party neither could process such a large quantity of brown sugar in a day nor they have the facility for the same.
2. Accordingly, Revenue undertook investigation and recorded the statements of various representatives of the appellant and issued show cause notice alleging that the appellant had removed the sugar clandestinely. The said show casue notice was contested by appellant on merit as also on limitation. However the same was upheld by Original adjudicating authority as also Commissioner (Appeals), who confirmed the demands of duty of Rs.10,33,600/- alongwith imposition of penalty on an identical amount.
3. After going through the impugned order, I find that admittedly the production figures of brown sugar were declared to the Department and permission for re-processing of the same was taken from Superintendent of the concerned Range. All the requisite data including the re-processing was with the knowledge of Department. The fact that such declarations were made by the appellant do not stand disputed by the authorities below, who have merely upheld the invocation of the longer period of limitation on the ground that on detailed scrutiny of their records, it has been found that it was impossible for the assessee to re-process such a huge quantum of BISS.
4. However, I do not find any merit in the above reason of lower authorities, Apart from the fact that the entire case of the Revenue is based upon only hypothetical calculations, I note that the demand is also barred by limitation. As against the brown sugar of 15929 Qtls. they have obtained quantity of 12737.62 Qtls. Which have been cleared on proper payment of duty. There is no evidence on record that the appellants have indulged in any clandestine activities. As such, I find no reason to uphold the impugned order of the lower authorities. The appeal is allowed on merits as also on limitation.
[Dictated & Pronounced in the open Court].
(ARCHANA WADHWA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Anita 3 3 Excise Appeal Nos. E/3023/2007[SM]