TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether, in clearances under Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, duty could be demanded on an apparent excess quantity shown at the consignee's end when the consignor's end measurements were taken on the basis of tank dip and out-turn reports; and (ii) whether the consignor or the consignee, as obligor under the bond, was liable for any duty arising from such discrepancy.
Issue (i): Whether, in clearances under Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, duty could be demanded on an apparent excess quantity shown at the consignee's end when the consignor's end measurements were taken on the basis of tank dip and out-turn reports.
Analysis: The quantity removed from the consignor's premises is the accountable quantity, and that quantity must ordinarily be ascertained at the consignor's end. Where the figures at the consignee's end show a higher quantity, the higher figure cannot, merely because it is more favourable to the revenue, replace the consignor's measurement as the basis for duty. An apparent excess may arise from measurement errors or other causes, and in the absence of special circumstances showing that the consignor's measurement was incorrect, there is no justification for levying duty on the apparent excess.
Conclusion: Duty could not be demanded on the apparent excess shown at the consignee's end; the consignor's end measurement remained the proper basis, in the absence of special circumstances.
Issue (ii): Whether the consignor or the consignee, as obligor under the bond, was liable for any duty arising from such discrepancy.
Analysis: The bond under Chapter X was executed by the consignee as the obligor, and the liability to account for the goods obtained under the bond rested on that obligor. The distinction drawn on the ground of partial exemption did not alter the position that the consignee, not the consignor, was responsible for accounting for discrepancies between the quantity procured and the quantity found at the consignee's end. In the facts of the case, there was no basis to invoke Rule 9 or to fasten the demand on the consignor.
Conclusion: The consignee, as obligor, was liable for any discrepancy, not the consignor.
Final Conclusion: The demand based on apparent excess failed, and the appeal filed by the consignor succeeded while the departmental appeal did not survive.
Ratio Decidendi: In clearances under Chapter X, the quantity established at the consignor's end is ordinarily the accountable quantity for duty purposes, and an apparent excess at the consignee's end cannot be used to impose duty absent special circumstances showing error in the consignor's measurement; liability under the bond rests on the consignee obligor.
TaxTMI 
