Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Uttam Sugar Mills Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 8 May, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III
Excise Appeal No. 1140 of 2012-SM
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 102-CE/MRT-I/2011 dated 21.12.2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Meerut ]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
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
M/s. Uttam Sugar Mills Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent,
Meerut I Appearance:
Ms. Sukriti Das, Advocate for the Appellants Shri B B Sharma, AR for the Respondent Date of Hearing /Decision: 8.5.2014 ORDER NO . FO/ 52163/2014-SM(Br) Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa:
The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses. At the time of visit of the officers, excess quantity of molasses to the extent of 272.3321 MT was detected. The same was seized by the officers and proceedings initiated resulting in confirmation of demands, confiscation of the same and imposition of penalties.
2. The appellants contention is that said excess quantity was on account of foaming in the stored molasses and there was no intention on their part to clear the same clandestinely without payment of duty. They also referred to various decisions laying down that allowance to the tune of 10% has to be given for foaming during the storage of molasses as per ISI specifications. The said plea does not stand accepted by the authorities on the ground that there was excess molasses to the extent of 35%.
3. Apart from the above, I find that there is virtually no evidence on record to show that such excess molasses were on account of any other reason or were not recorded with any intention to remove the same. The molasses are physically under the control of State Excise department in terms of UP State Sheera Adhiniyam and are subjected to approval and supervision of State excise officer. It is also a fact that volume of the molasses keep on varying depending upon many factors like temperature, storage moisture etc. The quantity can also vary depending upon the dip reading method which is not a full proof method.
4. For all the reasons recorded above, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.
(operative part of the order pronounced in the open Court )
( Archana Wadhwa ) Member(Judicial)
ss
??
??
??
??
2