Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta
Steel Authority Of India Ltd., Rourkela ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 14 September, 2001
JUDGMENT
Archana Wadhwa
1. After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri P.K. Das, learned Advocate and Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, learned S.D.R. for the Revenue, we find that the demand of duty has been confirmed against the appellants and penalty imposed upon them on the charges of clandestine removal, which are based upon comparison of figures of manufacture and clearance, as reflected in their Annual Financial Accounts and the entries made in their statutory records. The appellant firm assails the said Order on merits as also on limitation. The period involved is form 1985-86 and the show cause notice was issued in July, 1988.
2. It is seen that identical demands were raised against the appellants for the earlier periods. The said dispute was resolved by the Tribunal vide its Order No.A-1102/CAL/2000 dated 26.7.2000. The Tribunal took note of the appellants' submissions in para 4 of the said Order which is being reproduced below:-
"4. We find that the appellants had explained before the Commissioner that their PPC department compiles statistics of production and clearances of iron and steel products from different departments of the steel plants and publish annual statistics which is in circulation within a period of two months from the close of the financial year. The method of compilation adopted by the statistical department is completely different from that required for the maintenance of Central Excise records. The 'order department' of RSP under General Manager, Materials Management keeps record and despatch advice of materials removed from the factory. Order department complies the despatch on the basis of the advanced DA copy by taking the DA weight. Again the order department takes the DA date as the basis for accounting of despatch where RG-1 despatch is shown on R/R date basis on the actual weight. The annual statistics is prepared on the basis of the despatch figures reported by order department. Accordingly, they have submitted that on comparison, there would be sone discrepancies towards beginning of the financial year and at the close of the financial year and for the difference between the sectional weight and actual weight."
3. After considering the submissions, the Tribunal in para 9 of the said Order observed as follows:-
"9. We agree with submissions made by the ld.adv. that based upon the difference shown in the annual financial accounts and RG-1 register, the findings of the clandestine manufacture and removal cannot be sustained against the appellants. It is well settled law that onus to prove clandestine manufacture and clearance is upon the Revenue and required to be proved by production of sufficient evidence. There is nothing on record to show that the appellants have been indulging into excess clearances without payment of duty. The appellants have satisfactorily explained the difference between the figures as reflected in annual financial account and those entered in RG-1 for each and every item. As such we hold that confirmation of demand of duty against the appellants is not justified. We also find favour with the appellants' submissions that the demand is barred by limitation inasmuch as the show cause notice was issued on 5.12.90 whereas the annual financial accounts are put to circulation within a period of two months from the close of the financial year. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that there was any suppression on the part of the appellants so as to invoke the longer period of limitation. In view of the foregoing the appellant succeeds on merits as also on the point of limitation. Appeal is thus allowed with consequential relief to the appellants."
4. Inasmuch as the above Order covers the disputed issue, by following the ratio of the same, we set aside the impugned Order and allow the appeal with consequential reliefs to the appellants.
Dictated in the open court.