Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"5. The assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal challenging the said order and explained that their manufacturing activities as to how they were engaged in manufacture for themselves as well as they have been carrying on conversion job for another third party. After noting the facts the Tribunal held that LABSA and Spent Sulphuric Acid are of the same quality and the processing tank is also common in the factory as it is not possible to manufacture goods separately. Further, the Tribunal analysed the total consumption of LAB and Sulphuric Acid during the material period and took note of the ratio adopted and on facts held that there is hardly any difference between the ratio adopted for their own manufacture and conversion job. Further, the Tribunal noted that the department has not made any allegation that assessee procured excess quantity of LAB to manufacture excess quantity of Acid Slurry or LABSA 90%, nor the department has Appeal No.: E/77282/2018-DB produced any evidence or referred to any material to show how excess amounts of LAB has been brought into the factory and how the same were removed after being manufactured into LABSA. Thus, the Tribunal concluded that without any evidence on record the allegation of clandestine removal cannot be made.