9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 569X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thereafter the respondent filed ROA application and the Tribunal vide order dated 3-12-2009 [2010 (261) E.L.T. 955 (Tri.-Del.) dismissed the application. The respondent approached the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court vide order dated 8-4-2011 [2011 (269) E.L.T. 172 (All.)] set aside the orders passed by the Tribunal and directed the Tribunal to decide the appeals filed by the Revenue after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In view of the above order passed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court the appeals are taken up for hearing. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of cement. The factory premises of the respondents were visited by the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore the demand is rightly made and the impugned order is not sustainable. The contention is that this practice is followed by the respondents in the previous period is admitted by the Managing Director in his statement. Hence the impugned order is set aside and order passed by the adjudicating authority be restored. 6. The respondent submitted that only 10 bags were weighed and it was found that there was excess quantity of .070 kgs. in each bag. The contention is that 700 gms. is the weight of the bag and excess quantity to the extent of only one kg. per bag. The contention is that the Revenue issue a Circular No. 876/14/2008, dated 20-10-2008 whereby it has been clarified that variation of 1% should be allowed for the purpose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, 1977 the maximum permissible error in relation to the packing is 2% in respect of cement bag. 9. I have gone through the statement of Shri Mohammad Ibrahim, Managing Director in his statement he never admitted that they were clearing the cement in excess to the quantity packed in the bags clandestinely and receiving consideration in respect of excess quantity. The respondent were clearing showing weight of the bag is 50 kg. and paying duty on 50 kgs. Further I find that in the case of Sagar Cements Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the respondent held as under : "2. We find that the lower appellate authority has clearly recorded that as per the povisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and the Rules made thereund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
