2005 (7) TMI 226 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Dispute over clearance of newsprint, Allegation of duty evasion, Weight difference in consignments, Applicability of nil rate of duty to newspaper publishers, Commissioner's contention on duty leviability

Analysis:

1. Dispute over clearance of newsprint:
The appellants, engaged in manufacturing newsprint and writing/printing paper, were involved in a dispute regarding the clearance of consignments of newsprint. The department alleged that the appellants had illicitly cleared a specific quantity of newsprint, evading duty payment.

2. Allegation of duty evasion:
The department claimed that the appellants had cleared 41,499 kgs of newsprint illicitly, resulting in duty evasion amounting to Rs. 1,90,895. This allegation was primarily based on the discrepancy in weights recorded at the weigh bridge and those mentioned on the gate passes used for clearance.

3. Weight difference in consignments:
The crux of the dispute revolved around the weight difference observed between the weigh bridge slip and the gate passes. The department contended that duty was leviable on the differential quantity due to this weight variance.

4. Applicability of nil rate of duty to newspaper publishers:
The notification specified that if newsprint is cleared to newspaper publishers, they are entitled to a nil rate of duty. The contention arose as to whether the newsprint in question, subject to the weight difference, was indeed supplied to entities other than newspaper publishers.

5. Commissioner's contention on duty leviability:
The Commissioner argued that duty should be levied on the differential quantity based on the weight variance. However, the Tribunal found that unless the department could establish that the differential quantity was supplied to entities other than newspaper publishers, the duty imposition could not be sustained.

In conclusion, the Tribunal sided with the appellants, agreeing that the quantity covered under the gate passes had also been supplied solely to newspaper publishers. As a result, the appeals were allowed, and the Commissioner's order was set aside.