2010 (6) TMI 362 - AT - Central Excise

Remission of duty storage loss - percentage of loss should be arrived at based on total quantity consisting the opening balance and the quantity received during the month - original authority as well as Commissioner (Appeals) have correctly applied the instructions of the Board and accepted the contention of the party - department has chosen to file the appeal against the concurrent finding of the authorities which are in conformity with the guidelines of the Board - Committee of Commissioners had no valid reason to disregard the guidelines prescribed by the Board - appeal is rejected

Summary

Issues:
Dispute over storage loss calculation for denatured ethyl alcohol for July 2006.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi involved a dispute regarding the storage loss of denatured ethyl alcohol for the month of July 2006. The Department appealed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 29-1-2008. The relevant details included the opening balance, production, issue, closing balance, and shortage of goods. The Department calculated the loss at 5.9% based on the shortage of stock, while the respondent argued for a calculation of 0.3% based on actual loss against the total quantity. The respondent cited Circular F. No. 6/36/70-CX. 8 dated 8-12-1970 by the Central Board of Excise and Customs prescribing a maximum loss percentage of 0.5%. The original authority and Commissioner (Appeals) both upheld the remission, which the Department appealed against.

The Board's Circular dated 8-12-1970 provided guidelines for calculating losses in storage, specifying that the percentage of loss should be based on the total quantity consisting of the opening balance and quantity received during the month. The Circular also reduced the maximum admissible loss percentage to 0.5% for motor spirit. The Tribunal noted that both lower authorities correctly applied the Board's instructions and accepted the respondent's contention. The Tribunal criticized the Department for appealing against the authorities' findings that aligned with the Board's guidelines, stating that the Committee of Commissioners had no valid reason to disregard the prescribed guidelines. Consequently, the appeal by the Department was rejected.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment emphasized the importance of following the guidelines set by the Board for calculating storage losses. The case highlighted the significance of basing the percentage of loss on the total quantity of goods, as outlined in the Circular, and upheld the decisions of the lower authorities in favor of the respondent.