9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 774X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t it was noticed that during the period from April 2000 to July 2000 there was a difference in weight as shown in the invoice and as per the weighment slip, coming to the conclusion that the respondent had cleared the said cement in excess over and above the quantity shown in the invoice, issued a show cause notice for recovering the differential duty. The adjudicating authority came to the conclusion that the respondent had in fact removed the quantity of 37.615 MT of the finished goods without payment of duty. Coming to such a conclusion he confirmed the demand and imposed penalty and ordered for recovery of interest. Aggrieved by such an order, the respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gar Cements Ltd. reported in 2005 (180) ELT 196 has held in favour of the assessee and is squarely applicable in this case. He submits that they have filed an affidavit as regards the practice which is being carried out in their factory. 5. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. The finding of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in this case are as under:- 8.1 I have gone through entire case records, written/oral submissions of both sides and the Hon ble CESTAT s decision in the case of Oriental Carbon Chemicals vs. CCE Delhi. 8.2 In the case of Oriental Carbon Chemicals vs. CCE, Delhi 2005 (183) ELT 412 , it is admitted that they were dispatching a slightly excess quantity of carbon blac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 8.5 Secondly, even if the little quantity is packed more, the duty being on ad-valorum basis, the ratio of the CESTAT judgement in case of Reckitt Colman of India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Calcutta - 1993 (44) ECR 33 (Tri) squarely applies to the facts of the case in as much as that there is no allegation much less evidence of receipt of any extra amount other than the one raised in invoice. It can be seen from the above reproduced portion that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has come to a categorical finding that the cement bags when they were filled by automatic filing machine, a weight tag was affixed. The weight of the cement bags loaded on the truck and weight on the weighbridge is more but that it does not mean that the respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... andard of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and the Rules made thereunder, a maximum permissible error of 2% is allowed in weighment of cement, whereas in the case of the goods in dispute, discrepancy was only 1% with reference to the total quantity of cement cleared during the period and by working out the variation as a percentage thereof. She has also noted that the difference between the tare weight and gross weight represents only 1% of the total quantity of cement cleared during the period in dispute by the appellants and that such variations may arise on account of variation between two weighbridges, variation in the method of weighment etc. No satisfactory or acceptable arguments have been raised to dislodge the above findings. We, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
