2005 (12) TMI 336 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Disallowance of Modvat credit for furnace oil quantity discrepancy; Discrepancy due to temperature change and specific gravity; Use of "dip method" by stores department; Allegation of diversion of furnace oil enroute.

In the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, the issue revolved around the disallowance of Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 6,35,791/- for a furnace oil quantity discrepancy faced by the appellant. The discrepancy arose as the quantity received by the appellant from Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) in sealed tankers was deemed less than the quantity indicated in the invoices. The appellant explained that the temperature at which the oil was filled by IOC affected its specific gravity, leading to variations in quantity due to climatic conditions during transport. To ensure accuracy, the appellant weighed the tankers before and after unloading to determine the net weight of the received oil, which was then converted to liters using a specific factor of .9. This method aligned with the quantity dispatched by IOC and reflected in the invoices, enabling the appellant to claim the full Modvat credit for the duty paid by IOC.

Regarding the discrepancy highlighted by the stores department using the "dip method," a rudimentary technique influenced by temperature-induced volume changes, the Revenue raised demands based on these apparent shortages. However, the appellant's advocate argued that there was no evidence of diversion enroute, as the sealed tankers were received intact at the factory, negating the possibility of tampering or diversion. The advocate emphasized that the stores department's method, albeit imprecise, should not serve as grounds for denying credit for the entire quantity of furnace oil received.

Upon deliberation and considering the contentions presented, the Tribunal concurred with the appellant's stance. It was established that the sealed tankers remained untampered with, eliminating the risk of diversion enroute. Moreover, IOC had paid duty for the full tanker quantity as per the invoices, aligning with the quantity received by the appellant. The discrepancy noted by the stores department, attributed to temperature fluctuations and specific gravity alterations, was deemed insufficient to justify withholding the credit due to the appellant. Consequently, the impugned order disallowing the Modvat credit was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, granting consequential relief to the appellant.