Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2014 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (11) TMI 237 - AT - Central ExciseShortage of goods - Petroleum products - Held that - Duty has been demanded on the shortage of goods found at the end of the buyer which is less than 0.5% of the clearance made by the appellant. In appellant s own case, the Hon ble High Court 2013 (3) TMI 481 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT has held that shortage of 1% as transit loss based on the CBEC circular 55/89 dated 15.12.1989 and in this case the shortage if 0.5%. Therefore, I hold that in this case proceedings against the appellant were not warranted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Demand of duty on account of short receipt of goods by the buyer. Analysis: The appellant, a manufacturer of petroleum products, appealed against the demand of duty due to a shortage of goods received by the buyer. The goods shown in the invoice were found to be short at the buyer's end during the impugned period. The demand for duty, along with interest and penalty, was confirmed in the impugned order. The appellant argued that it was a case of transit loss, citing a permissible shortage limit of 1% for petroleum products as established by the Hon'ble High Court in a previous case. The shortage in this case was only 0.5%, hence the appellant contended that the proceedings were unwarranted. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel reiterated the transit loss argument, while the ld. AR supported the findings in the impugned order. The appellate tribunal considered the submissions and noted that duty was demanded based on a shortage of goods amounting to less than 0.5% of the clearance made by the appellant. Referring to the appellant's previous case, the tribunal highlighted that a shortage of 1% was considered as transit loss according to a CBEC circular. Since the shortage in this case was 0.5%, the tribunal concluded that the proceedings against the appellant were not justified. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief. The stay application was disposed of accordingly.
|