2002 (5) TMI 674 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Shortage of molasses and duty remission application.
2. Variation in quantity and CBEC circular application.
3. Allegations of clandestine removal and penalty imposition.
4. Impact of natural causes on stock discrepancies.
5. Legal precedents supporting the appellant's case.

Shortage of molasses and duty remission application:
The appeal was filed against an order regarding the shortage of molasses stored in steel tanks by the appellant, a sugar and molasses manufacturer. The appellant reported a loss of 746.65 quintals of molasses without reasons, later attributing it to foam/air bubbles. The duty remission application was submitted after a month of detecting the shortage, leading to scrutiny of RT 12 returns for duty free clearances.

Variation in quantity and CBEC circular application:
The appellant argued a variation of 1.86% within the permissible limit of 2% as per CBEC circular No. 261/15/82-CX.8, citing legal precedents to support the claim. No evidence of clandestine removal was presented, challenging the duty demand and penalty imposition. The appellant emphasized the impact of natural causes on stock discrepancies, supported by case laws highlighting volumetric changes in molasses due to factors like temperature.

Allegations of clandestine removal and penalty imposition:
The Department reiterated findings regarding clandestine removal and penalty imposition, which the appellant contested by shifting the burden of proof to the Department. Legal arguments were made based on the appellant's status as a Public Sector Undertaking and previous judgments emphasizing the Department's responsibility to prove clandestine removal before imposing penalties.

Impact of natural causes on stock discrepancies:
The appellant presented arguments regarding the impact of natural causes on stock discrepancies, such as variations in molasses density and volume due to temperature changes. Legal precedents were cited to support the claim that excess stock found based on dip readings may not be sustainable due to these natural fluctuations affecting the actual weight at the time of clearance.

Legal precedents supporting the appellant's case:
The judgment analyzed the variation claimed by the appellant, concluding it fell within the permissible limit set by the Board. Considering the legal position and facts presented, the judgment favored the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal. The decision was based on the convincing argument that the case warranted setting aside the order due to the permissible variation and lack of evidence supporting clandestine removal or penalty imposition.