9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1067X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Arroa, Ld. Advocate appearing for the respondent. 3. As per the facts on record, the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of cement and is clearing the cement in the declared quantity of 50kgs in each bag. As a result of certain investigations made by the Anti-Evasion Unit of Central Excise Division, Kota, it was found that while filling the said 50 kgs bags of cement by electronic packers, the weight target of the said machines have been set marginally on the higher side to fill the net mass of cement in each and every bag. These packing machines are re-calibrated and weight target is set from time to time. The scrutiny of records in the factory revealed that the assessee is maintaining a register in their production/packing secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he customers and keeping in view the nature of the cement, if they are less than 50 kgs at the time of receipt by the customers, it would be violation of BIS norms. So, a little marginal excess filling of the bag is to ensure that the ultimate customer should get the assured quantity of 50 kg cement in each and every bag. 5. While adjudicating the show cause notice issued to the respondent, Commissioner took note of the provisions of Standards of Weight and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 which permitted maximum permissible error of 2% as also the Boards Circular No. 876/14/2008-CX dated 20/10/2008. 6. For better appreciation of the issue involved, we reproduce the said Circular "Representations were received from the trade ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Ld. DR as also the representative of the respondent, we find that Revenue is not disputing the existence of the above circular. It is also not their case that the appellants have collected consideration from their customers for a quantity more than 50 kgs. 9. We find that keeping in view the nature of the cement, the tolerance limit of 1% stands allowed in terms of the said circular as also in terms of the Provisions of Rule 2 (1) (i) of the Standards of Weight and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. It is a well settled law that Revenue cannot argue against the circulars issued by the Board. Reference can be made to Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Mahavir Aluminium Ltd. V/s. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
