COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM Vs. VASAVADATTA CEMENTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revenue is before us in this appeal. Respondent-Company is engaged in the manufacture of cement and is covered by the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondent is accounting the cement in RG-1 daily stock account register on the basis of dip reading difference of the silo plus cement dispatched and apart from other records the respondent is also maintaining log sheets in respect of the said cement plant. It is submitted that the said log sheet maintained by the respondent is an indicator of input feed rate of inputs like clinker and gypsum at an hourly interval and the operation period of the plant/mill in the running hours. On the reasonable belief that the respondent is not accounting the entire quantity of cement manufactured and is clearing the said unaccounted portion without issuing invoice and without payment of duty, the preventive unit visited the said plant/mill on 4-2-1997 and further on 19-2-1997. Records were checked and statements were recorded. Thereafter, the department issued a show cause notice on 16-8-2000 (Annexure B'). In the show cause notice, the department made reference to the Dip Register for the purpose of suppression of material facts on the part of the Company. The department also considered the said suppression of facts for the purpose of extended limitation in terms of Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act (for short the Act'). After receipt of notice, the respondent submitted a detailed reply denying the allegations made against the Company. Matter was heard. The then Commissioner passed an adverse order relying on the Dip Register for the purpose of suppression and for the suppression of the case on the merits of the matter. An adverse order was passed confirming the show cause notice. Matter was taken to the Tribunal by the assessee. The Tribunal, after hearing has chosen to remand the matter for reconsideration with a further direction to make available the Dip Register to the assessee for the purpose of the say of the assessee in the case on hand. Thereafter, the department did not make available the said Register. But however heard the respondent-Company and once again confirmed the earlier demand. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee went for appeal for the second time before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has accepted the case of the assessee. It is in these circumstances, the revenue is before us.

(2.) Sri. Bhaskar, learned Standing Counsel for the department argues that the Tribunal has committed a serious error in accepting the case of the assessee in the case on hand. According to him, there is other material available on record for the purpose of suppression of facts and for the purpose of the claim made on the Company by the Department in the matter of excise duty. Learned Counsel says that the Tribunal has committed a serious error in accepting the case of the assessee in setting aside the detailed order passed by the Commissioner in the case on hand. He finds fault with the reasonings of the Tribunal.

(3.) Per contra, Sri. Kathavi, learned Counsel supports the order.