9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 3. We heard both sides. 4. The appellants are the manufacturers of pesticides. Revenue proceeded against them by issue of Show Cause Notice dated 19-11-1998 raising the demands in respect of four issues. The Joint Commissioner in his O-I-O No. 7/1999, dated 14-5-2007 dropped the demands proposed on tow issues and confirmed the demands in respect of other two issues. The Commissioner (Appeals) Chennai in O-I-O No. 92/2000, dated 15-9-2000 has confirmed the order of the Original Authority and therefore the appellants have come before this Tribunal for relief. 5. The first issue is regarding the classification of de-mineralized water. The period of demand is from 30-9-1995 to 3-3-1998. The amount of duty demanded is Rs. 81,110/-. Equal pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e gases have been removed); compressed air; amalgams, other than amalgams of precious metals -Distilled or conductivity water and water of similar purity: 28.51.11 Used within the factory of production 28.51.19 Other Liquid air (whether or not any fraction has been removed) 28.51.21 Used within the factory of production 28.51.29 Other 28.51.30 Compressed air 28.51.90 Other 7.1 She stated that the product manufactured by the appellant would definitely fall under the above category in terms of the HSN notes. 8. Further, the learned Advocate relied on the following Circulars of the Board: (a) C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 84/84/94-CX.I, dated 20-12-1994 (b) C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 9/87-CE, dated 28-7-1987. 8.1 It was also urged t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Serial Nos.1, 3 and 5 the loss is due to transit/storage /handling. The learned Advocate relied on the following decisions: (a) 1998 (104) E.L.T. 382 (Tri.) - Neera Enterprises v. CCE, Chandigarh (b) 2000 (125) E.L.T. 578 (Tri.) - CCE, Aurangabad v. Sipta Coated Steels Ltd. (c) 2000 (116) E.L.T 583 (Tri.) - Bhoruka Textites Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore. 10.1 In the above decisions, it was held that there could be no direction for reversal of credit in respect of input loss arising out of dryage, storage, evaporation, etc. It was further held that weighment errors will also lead to excess/short receipt of quantity and therefore there could be no direction for reversal of credit where receipted quantity is marginally less than the quantity tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entioned table. In view of this, these demands to the tune of Rs. 24,118/- and Rs.10,050/- are confirmed. The other reasons for denying Modvat credit and holding them to be irregular are: (a) Short receipt of input (b) Storage loss, handling loss at TAS, Ambattur and Ennore Factory (c) In transit loss in respect of direct receipt of inputs at Ennore factory. 13.1 The above losses are condonable in view of the decisions of the Tribunal cited by the learned Advocate. Further, there is not allegation that these losses are abnormal. In these circumstances, the demands in Serial Nos.1, 3 & 5 are set aside. As there is no justification for invocation of the longer period, penalty imposed under Section 11AC is set aside. In fine, only the dema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
