Minor weighment variation in cement dispatches does not establish excise evasion without proof of clandestine clearance.

Minor differences between invoice weight and weighbridge weight in cement dispatches do not by themselves justify excise duty, penalty, or interest. Where the variation arose from automatic bag-filling and different weighment points, and the record showed no clandestine removal, no knowing excess clearance, and no additional consideration, the demand was treated as unsustainable. A negligible 0.005% variation was viewed as within permissible fluctuation, and precedent on admitted excess dispatch was distinguished from cases supporting tolerance of minor weighment differences.

---

---

Issues: Whether a small difference between the weight shown in the invoice and the weighbridge weight justified demand of excise duty, penalty, and interest on the footing of excess clearance of cement.

Analysis: The difference arose from the use of an automatic bag-filling machine, weight tags affixed to each bag, and subsequent weighment at a different weighbridge. The record did not establish that the respondent knowingly cleared excess quantity or that there was any evidence of clandestine removal. The variation was only 0.005% and was treated as falling within permissible fluctuation in weighment. The cited precedent involving admitted excess dispatch was distinguished, while the precedent supporting tolerance of minor weight variation and absence of extra consideration was found applicable.

Conclusion: The demand was not sustainable and the respondent was entitled to relief.

Final Conclusion: Minor and unexplained weighment differences, without proof of clandestine clearance or additional consideration, do not warrant excise demand when the variation is within the permissible range.

Ratio Decidendi: A negligible weight difference by itself does not establish excisable excess removal unless supported by evidence of clandestine clearance or other material showing duty evasion.

---