CESTAT rules in favor of appellants in aerated water bottle breakage case, emphasizing transparency & verification

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, KOLKATA, ruled in favor of the appellants in a case concerning the breakage of aerated water bottles under high pressure within the factory premises. The Tribunal considered the appellant's arguments regarding the breakage percentage being below the norm and their regular communication of breakage information to the Excise Authorities. Despite concerns raised by the Respondent about the switch to plastic bottles and lack of physical evidence, the Tribunal granted the appellants the benefit of doubt. The impugned orders were set aside, and both appeals were allowed, emphasizing the importance of transparency and verification in such cases.

---

---

Issues: Breakage of aerated water bottles under high pressure within factory premises.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, KOLKATA, the issue revolved around the destruction of aerated water bottles due to breakage under high pressure within the factory premises. The appellant, represented by Shri P. Debnath, Advocate, argued that the breakage percentage was below the norm set by the Board and that they regularly informed the Excise Authorities about the breakage. Reference was made to a previous decision in the appellant's own case to support their claim. On the other hand, Shri Manish Kumar, JDR for the Respondent, raised concerns about the switch from glass to plastic bottles, casting doubt on the breakage claim. It was noted that the broken bottles were not kept for inspection as they were destroyed periodically under high pressure.

After considering the arguments from both sides and evaluating the reasonable percentage of breakage along with the minimal duty involved, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants deserved the benefit of doubt. The Tribunal highlighted the regular communication of breakage information to the Excise Department by the appellants, emphasizing that the Excise Authorities could have verified the breakage through inspections. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and both appeals were allowed. The judgment underscores the importance of transparency in reporting breakage incidents and the significance of providing opportunities for verification by the regulatory authorities to resolve such disputes effectively.

---