1988 (10) TMI 226 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Discrepancy in weight of imported waste papers
- Demand of duty for non-production of End Use Certificate
- Imposition of penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act
- Consideration of documentary evidence by authorities

Analysis:
The appeal involved a discrepancy in the weight of waste papers imported by the appellants, as the manifested quantity was 199.910 M/Tons, but the actual weight was found to be 169.755 M/Tons, resulting in a shortage of 30.155 M/Tons. The appellants were required to produce an End Use Certificate for duty exemption, but they could only produce it for the actual cleared quantity. The Asstt. Collector and the Collector of Customs (Appeals) had confirmed the demand of differential duty, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

During the appeal hearing, the appellant's representative argued that the documentary evidence, including survey reports and weigh bridge certificates, supported the actual weight clearance of 169.755 M/Tons, not the manifested quantity. The authorities were criticized for not properly considering this evidence and for imposing a penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act, which was factually incorrect. The Collector (Appeals) had acknowledged the shortage but rejected the appellant's contention based on the timing of the discrepancy.

The Tribunal examined the documentary evidence, which included survey reports, weigh bridge certificates, and receipts, all indicating the actual weight clearance. It was noted that the weighment certificates and receipts matched the survey report, establishing the shortage of 30.155 M/Tons. The Tribunal found the demand for the End Use Certificate on the un-cleared quantity unjustified, as it was impossible for the appellants to produce a certificate for goods not received.

Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the decisions of the lower authorities, and directed that the appellants be granted the consequential relief. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering documentary evidence and ensuring that demands are based on accurate and justifiable grounds, particularly in cases of discrepancies like the one presented in this appeal.