2001 (6) TMI 110

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tities of beverage base and the beverage. The ratio indicated that one of the beverage base would yield 400 crates of the soft drink. The actual production of beverage fell short of this ratio varying from of 0.4% for Limca, one of beverages, to 2.5% for Gold Spot. The second ground for demand of duty is that, in the monthly sales report that the manufacturer furnished to the supplier of the beverage base, it indicated quantities which were often higher than the quantities of production recorded in the RG1 register. The third ground related to wrong taking of the Modvat credit, and is mentioned only for the sake of completeness as it is not a ground in the appeal before us. In the impugned order, the Commissioner has confirmed the proposal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ying the ratio of the decision referred to earlier, we hold that demand on this ground was not sustainable. 3. The appellant was sending monthly figures of its sales to Parle Exports Ltd. under whose franchisee it manufactured the beverages. The show cause notice found that, often, the figures in this reports showed sales of certain beverages to be higher than the quantity of production recorded in the RG 1 register, and concluded from this that the quantity shown in the RG 1 register was deliberately kept lower to evade duty. Representative of the appellant has two contentions in this regard. The sales register did not accurately portray the figures of the quantity of beverage sold. The figures were often inflated so as to give a misleadi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... June & November, 1989, December 1992, April - May, 1993 Thums Up - June & November, 1989, February to June, 1993 Citra - April 1991, February to July, 1993 5. Further, the fact that the appellant did not manufacture Maaza, which often in the sales register has also been shown to supports this view. In this background, we find appropriate to rely upon the decision of this Tribunal holding that mere report or private record by itself is not enough to justify the conclusion of manufacture and clearance without payment of duty. [See Moon Beverages v. C.C.E. - 1999 (33) RLT 153]. The demand for duty and consequent imposition of penalty therefore, have to be set aside. 6. Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.  
Case laws, Decis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X