Tank-wise evaporation loss and shortage-based duty demand sustained while recomputation of condonable loss was remanded for fresh verification.

Evaporation loss in tank-wise stock verification had to be computed on a rational production-based basis over the relevant operating period, not by limiting the loss to stock found on the visit date; the computation issue was therefore remanded for fresh determination. A shortage-based duty demand was sustained because it arose from the assessee's own records showing non-accountal of production and was independent of the remand on reclassification. The penalty under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was also upheld, as the shortages, excess stock, and accountal discrepancies provided no ground for interference merely because one issue was sent back for recomputation.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the condensation of shortage as evaporation loss was correctly worked out and required re-computation; (ii) whether the duty demand of Rs. 22,174.45 on Insan-LE shortage was sustainable; (iii) whether the penalty imposed under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was liable to interference.

Issue (i): Whether the condensation of shortage as evaporation loss was correctly worked out and required re-computation.

Analysis: The shortage and excess were required to be examined tank-wise, and the method adopted for computing condonable evaporation loss had to reflect the actual production cycle over the relevant period. The computation made by limiting the loss to the stock found on the date of visit was held to be incorrect, because the tanks would have been emptied and refilled over several years and the loss, if genuine, would have occurred throughout the period. At the same time, the appellants' method of adding clearance figures to opening balance and production was also found to be incorrect. The proper approach was to consider opening balance and production figures for arriving at condonable loss and then determine the actual shortage or excess.

Conclusion: The issue was remanded to the Commissioner for fresh computation of the condonable loss.

Issue (ii): Whether the duty demand of Rs. 22,174.45 on Insan-LE shortage was sustainable.

Analysis: The demand arose from the difference between the RG-1 records and the appellants' own production records, reflecting shortage of accountal of production. The challenge based on the remand directions and limitation was not accepted, since the demand was based on the appellants' own calculation and related to shortage in accountal rather than a distinct speculative addition. The demand of Rs. 1,83,247.48 linked to reclassification was kept open for verification on remand, but that did not disturb the independent shortage-based demand of Rs. 22,174.45.

Conclusion: The duty demand of Rs. 22,174.45 was sustained.

Issue (iii): Whether the penalty imposed under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was liable to interference.

Analysis: In view of the repeated litigation and the findings recorded on shortages, excess stock, and accountal discrepancies, no ground was found to interfere with the penalty merely because the matter was again being remanded on the computation issue. The penalty was therefore left undisturbed.

Conclusion: The penalty was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of with a remand on the computation of condonable loss and verification of the reclassification-based demand, while the shortage-based duty demand and the penalty were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where shortages and evaporation losses arise over a long operational period with no periodic stock verification, condonable loss must be computed on a rational production-based basis and tank-wise, while a shortage-based demand supported by the assessee's own records may be sustained independently of the remand on other issues.

---