2001 (6) TMI 110 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Short levy of duty on production of aerated beverages.
2. Alleged discrepancies in monthly sales reports.
3. Wrong taking of Modvat credit.

Issue 1: Short levy of duty on production of aerated beverages
The appeal was against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa, which alleged a short levy of duty by the manufacturer on two counts. The first count was related to the production of beverages falling short of the expected ratio between the quantities of beverage base and the beverage. The actual production varied from 0.4% to 2.5% for different beverages. The second count was about discrepancies in the monthly sales report furnished to the supplier of the beverage base, showing quantities higher than those recorded in the RG1 register. The Commissioner confirmed the demand for duty and imposed a penalty. However, the Tribunal referred to previous decisions where demands based solely on theoretical production ratios were not sustained. It was noted that the formula used was theoretical and did not consider factors leading to waste in production. The Tribunal held that the demand was not sustainable as the difference between notional and actual production was not substantial.

Issue 2: Alleged discrepancies in monthly sales reports
The appellant sent monthly sales figures to the franchisee under whose name the beverages were manufactured. The notice alleged that the sales figures in the reports were often higher than the production quantities recorded in the RG1 register, suggesting an attempt to evade duty. The appellant argued that the sales register did not accurately reflect the actual sales figures and that the figures were inflated to mislead the franchisee. However, the Tribunal found the explanation unconvincing, stating that there was no apparent motive for the franchisee to inflate sales figures. The Tribunal observed discrepancies between sales figures and production quantities recorded in the RG1 register for various beverages. It was held that mere reports or private records were not enough to justify the conclusion of manufacturing and clearance without payment of duty, setting aside the demand for duty and penalty.

Issue 3: Wrong taking of Modvat credit
Although mentioned in the impugned order, the issue of wrong taking of Modvat credit was not a ground in the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, it was only mentioned for completeness and did not form part of the decision. The Tribunal focused on the primary issues of short levy of duty and discrepancies in sales reports, ultimately setting aside the demand for duty and penalty imposed by the Commissioner.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, emphasizing the importance of considering actual production factors rather than theoretical ratios and highlighting the insufficiency of sales reports alone to establish duty evasion.