Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. Therefore, we hold that the demand of Rs.16,73,666.75 is not sustainable.

13. A demand of Rs.19,36,934/- was sought to be confirmed against the appellant on the basis of suppression of batch charges for production. The appellant in reply to the show cause notice has given the explanation with regard to that and submitted that number of Excise Appeal Nos.70253, 70254, 70255 & 70256 of 2013 batch charges have been taken into consideration without taking note of the fact that after charging one batch, the batch in reactors the digested mass are placed into the separator and stored there for separation for a part period of time by adopting the process of layer separation, which is must in relation to the mixtures of two or more liquid material of different specific gravity and drained out by bottom discharge basis through which Spent Acid recovered first followed by mixed Spent Acid with LABSA. The mixed quantity required further operation for separation and temporarily stored in the dedicated storage tank and subsequently processing take place, the re-processed batch again placed in a separator like normal batches recovered LABSA and Spent Acid as per norms. The explanation given by the appellant has not been verified or has not been taken up at the time of investigation, same had to be done to know how the batch charge has taken placed then it will be clear. Without any concrete evidence the charge of clandestine removal on the basis of batch charges cannot be confirmed held by this Tribunal in the case of Commr. of Cus., C.E. & S.T., Ghaziabad vs. Auto Gollon Industries P.Ltd. (supra) has observed as under:-

In view of the above, the demand of Rs.14,03,998/- is not sustainable, hence dropped.

16. The demand of Rs.1,93,90,293/- was sought to be confirmed on the basis of diary notes recovered from a diary seized during the course of investigation containing some entries which the department assumed that they are relating to manufacture of Acid Slurry, making the theoretical calculation suppressed production of Acid Slury had been inferred in comparison to the Acid Slurry recorded in the RG-1 Register during the period from 01.01.2001 to 22.11.2001 involving duty of Rs.1,93,90,293/-. But private diary belongs to their employee Shri Debasis Ghosh, who was maintaining the same in his personal capacity and it is the contention of the appellant that to manufacture such a huge quantity of LABSA, it requires a huge quantity of LAB and Acid Slurry, but no corroborative evidence is brought on record by the Revenue that the appellant has purchased so much of raw material to manufacture the said goods and the said allegation remains without any corroborative evidence. We find that in the case of Gupta Synthetic Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Ahmedabad-II (supra), the Tribunal has examined the issue and has observed as under:-

19. Another demand of Rs.2,27,850.62 has been confirmed on account of clandestine removal of Spent Acid. The said allegation is made on the basis that Spent Acid is generated during the course of production of LABSA, therefore, appellant has suppressed the clearance of Spent Acid. The reply made by the appellant is that the said clearance of Spent Acid depends on production of LABSA and there is no evidence in the show cause notice to support the said allegation and there is no evidence in respect of disproportionate procurement of LAB/Sulphuric Acid illegally by the appellant and no corroborative evidence has been produced.