Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Allahabad vs Ioc Limited on 12 September, 2013
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066.
DIVISION BENCH
Court No.3
Appeal No.E/1313/2006
(Arising out of OIA No.13-CE/ALLD/2006 dated 2.2.06 passed by the CCE (Appeals),Allahabad)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 12.09.2013
For approval and signature:
Honble Mrs.Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Honble Mr.Manmohan Singh, Member (Technical)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
N0
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
CCE, Allahabad Appellant
Vs
IOC Limited Respondent
Present for the Appellant: Shri B.B.Sharma, DR Present for the Respondent: Ms.Tuhina Sinha, Advocate Coram: Honble Mrs.Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr.Manmohan Singh, Member (Technical) FINAL ORDER NO.57812/2013 PER: ARCHANA WADHWA Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue has filed present appeal.
2. We have heard Shri B.B.Sharma, ld.DR for the appellant and Ms.Tuhina Sinha, ld.Advocate for the respondent.
3. As per the facts on records, the appellant is receiving lubricating oil from M/s.IOBL, Kolkata either on payment of duty or without payment of duty under bond. They were repacking the same into small packs to be sold in the market under their own brand and style.
4. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the quantum of lubricating oil which according to the Revenue are not accounted for in quantity of final product of the appellant. Accordingly the demand confirmed by the original adjudicating authority but set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) by observing that difference on account of loss or shortage were to the tune of 0.44% to 1.78%, whereas tolerance range is between 1.5% to 1%. He also observed that there is no evidence of clandestine manufacture and removal, in the absence of which no duty can be demanded on the waste or loss.
5. On careful examination of the submissions made by both sides, we do not find merit in the Revenues appeal. Admittedly the duty is being demanded in respect of difference on account of loss or shortage which was allowed under Standard Weight and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977 as also in terms of Input-Output norms declared under Exim Policy 2002-07. There is no evidence on record to show that such shortage/wastage was used by the appellant in the manufacture of final products and stands cleared by the appellant wihtout payment of duty. As such, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Revenues appeal is rejected.
(Pronounced in the open court)
(MANMOHAN SINGH) (ARCHANA WADHWA)
MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
mk
3