2017 (10) TMI 546 - AT - Central Excise

Excess stock - Molasses - said excess quantity was arrived by at officers by adopting Dip Reading method of all the stock of the molasses in the storage tank, which the appellant claims to be incorrect - confiscation - penalties - Held that - I do find strong force in submissions that the stock of molasses on the Dip Reading method is incorrect, as the same has been settled by the Tribunal in the case of Ghatampur Sugars Co. Ltd., 1994 (12) TMI 237 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI and U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd., 1999 (12) TMI 219 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI - on the issue arriving at the book stock Dip Reading is incorrect, both the lower authorities have incorrectly arrived at the conclusion that the stock taken by the officers in the case in hand by Dip Reading is correct and there was excess - there is no correct and clear picture actual of molasses stock. The movement molasses is always under physical control of State Excise Authorities. Identical issue decided in the case of TRIVENI ENGG. & INDS. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT 2006 (6) TMI 404 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI , where it was held that the case made out of the Revenue is on wrong footing on the fact that the State Excise departments record and the record maintained by the appellant-company are tallying. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Correctness of Dip Reading method for stock quantification.
2. Confiscation of excess goods and imposition of penalties based on stock discrepancies.
3. Adherence to established case laws and precedents in similar matters.

Issue 1: Correctness of Dip Reading method for stock quantification

The appeal challenged the Order-in-Appeal that upheld the confiscation of excess molasses stock based on the Dip Reading method. The appellant argued that the method used by the authorities was incorrect and could lead to wrong quantification. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities summarily dismissed the appellant's challenges without proper consideration. Citing previous cases like Ghatampur Sugars Co. Ltd. and U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd., the Tribunal held that the stock quantification through Dip Reading was incorrect. Due to the lack of a clear and accurate picture of the actual stock, the appeal was set aside.

Issue 2: Confiscation of excess goods and imposition of penalties based on stock discrepancies

In a similar case involving Triveni Engineering Industries Ltd., the officers found an excess quantity of molasses based on Dip Reading, leading to confiscation and penalties. The appellant disputed the excess quantity due to foaming and argued that the stock-taking method was flawed. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's records aligned with the State Excise records, indicating no physical excess of goods. As molasses are under the control of State Excise authorities, any discrepancies in stock were reconciled with the State Excise records. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the confiscation and penalties, following the precedent set in the earlier case.

Issue 3: Adherence to established case laws and precedents in similar matters

The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following established case laws and precedents in matters of stock quantification and confiscation. Referring to the decision in the Triveni Engineering Industries Ltd. case, where confiscation was set aside due to discrepancies in stock records, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant. Additionally, considering that molasses movement is under the control of State Excise authorities, the Tribunal found the impugned order unsustainable and set it aside, allowing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the incorrectness of the Dip Reading method for stock quantification, leading to the setting aside of confiscation and penalties in both cases. The importance of adhering to established case laws and precedents in similar matters was highlighted to ensure fair and accurate judgments in excise-related issues.