Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CESTAT) 1945
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
Ashok Jindal, Judicial Member, K. Anpazhakan, Technical Member
Simran Metals Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Patna – Respondent
Excise Appeal No. 79643 of 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Tarun Chatterjee, Raju Mondal
For the Respondents: S.K. Jha
A duty demand cannot be confirmed solely on the non-production of statutory records by the assessee if those records are already available with the department and the production data provided by the assessee has not been proven false.
Headnote:The case involves the interpretation of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. A manufacturer of M.S. Ingots sought to discharge duty liability based on actual production and clearance rather than the Annual Capacity of Production (ACP). Following a series of remands, the adjudicating authority confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 68,10,427/- on the grounds that the assessee failed to produce RT-12 Returns and RG-1 registers, despite the assessee providing other production and electricity consumption details. The primary issue is whether a duty demand can be confirmed solely due to the non-production of statutory records by the assessee when such records are already available with the department. The court reasoned that since the adjudicating authority did not find the provided production data to be false and the statutory documents (RT-12 Returns and Challans) are maintained by the department, there is no justification for insisting that the assessee produce them to prove actual production. In the result, we set aside the demand of central excise duty confirmed vide the impugned order and allow the appeal filed by the appellant, with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
ORDER: [PER SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN]
The present appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Original No. 08/M.P/Ayukt/Denovo/2018 dated 06.04.2018 [hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”] passed by the Ld. Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise, Patna-I Commissionerate.
M/s. Simran Metals Limited, Phase-II, Fatuha Industrial Area, Patna – 803 201 [hereinafter referred to as the “appellant”] is a manufacturer of M.S. Ingots of Non-Alloy Steel falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. With the introduction of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 w.e.f. 01.09.1997, the appellant was liable to pay central excise duty for the goods manufactured through induction furnace under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2.1. Initially, the appellant had opted to pay duty under Rule 96ZO (3) of the Central Excise Rules,1944. The appellant vide letter dated 23.02.1998 addressed to the Commissioner, withdrew the option and sought permission to discharge duty liability under Rule 96ZO (1) of the Central Excise Rules,1944 w.e.f. 01.04.1998 on actual production and clearance instead of Annual Capacity of Production (ACP). The application for switch over was rejected by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna by order, dated 01.04.1998.
Thereafter, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna vide his orders dated 25.03.1998 and 30.03.1999 determined the ACP. Thereafter, four Show Cause Notices were issued for non-compliance of the orders dated 25.03.1998 and 30.03.1999.
3.1. The appellant challenged the above orders by way of Appeal before this Tribunal and the Tribunal vide Order No. A-1413-CAL/2000 dated 31.08.2000 had set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Thereafter the Ld. Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna passed Order-in-Original No. 219-224/MP/Ayukt/Denovo/2001 dated 03.12.2001, confirming the demand of central excise duty of Rs.73,10,427/- under the provisions of Rule 96ZO of the Rules read with Section 3A and Section 11A of the Act after off-setting Central Excise duty already paid along with admissible abatement on account of closure of factory of the appellant during the financial years 1998-99 and 1999-2000, along with interest at the applicable rate under the said provisions. In addition, the Ld. Commissioner also imposed penalty under the provisions of Rule 96ZO of the Rules equal to the amount of duty confirmed.
4.1. The appellant preferred Appeal challenging the Order-in-Original No. 219-224/MP/Ayukt/Denovo/2001 dated 03.12.2001 before the Tribunal. Thereafter, vide its Final Order No. 387/2002-B dated 05.08.2002, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner, Central Excise, Patna for determining the actual production under Section 3A (4) of the Act and directed to consider the applications for abatement of duty during the period 02.12.1997 to 09.12.1997 and from 09.01.1998 to 31.01.1998.
The Ld. Commissioner has passed the impugned order dated 06.04.2018 wherein it has been recorded that the admissibility of determination of actual production is not in question; that the appellant had furnished details of production, clearances, raw materials purchased, electricity consumed etc but in support could not submit copy of RT-12 Returns and RG-1 register. Accordingly, the claim of the appellant to determine their Central excise duty liability in terms of Section 3A (4) of the Act was not considered.
Thereafter, the Ld. Commissioner has confirmed the demand of central excise duty of Rs.68,10,427/-.
Aggrieved by the confirmation of the above demand of duty, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.
The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the impugned order has been passed after a period of 18 years without any communication to them. Further, it was submitted that the duty has been confirmed against the appellant on the ground that the appellant could not produce RT-12 Returns and RG-1 R
