Tribunal allows appeals due to minimal discrepancies in received quantities and plausible weigh-bridge differences explanation.

The tribunal allowed both appeals, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) orders, as the discrepancies in received quantities never exceeded 0.5%, and the explanation provided by the appellants regarding weigh-bridge differences was deemed plausible. The tribunal emphasized the absence of evidence of deliberate evasion or underpayment, supported by previous tribunal decisions allowing the practice of ignoring marginal differences in received quantities.

---

---

Issues involved: Appeal arising from two different orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding availing Modvat credit facility of duty paid on inputs, specifically related to discrepancies in quantity received and credit claimed.

Analysis:
1. Appeal E/821/2000:
- The appellants, manufacturers of goods under specific chapters of the Central Excise Tariff Act, were accused of availing full credit of duty paid on inputs despite receiving quantities less than shown in duty paying documents.
- The appellants argued that they weighed consignments on their weigh-bridge upon receipt and ignored shortages less than 1%, attributing them to differences in weigh-bridge scales. They claimed full credit for duty paid on the received quantity.
- The appellant contended that no mala fides were involved, and there was no intent to evade duty. They cited previous tribunal decisions supporting the practice of ignoring marginal differences in received quantities.
- After reviewing the records, the tribunal noted that the discrepancies never exceeded 0.5% and found the explanation plausible. The tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order.

2. Appeal E/2832/2000:
- This appeal was decided based on the same grounds as Appeal E/821/2000, with the tribunal setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and allowing the appeal due to the similarity of issues involved in both cases.

In both appeals, the tribunal considered the practice of ignoring marginal differences in received quantities, especially when attributable to factors like differences in weigh-bridge calibration. The tribunal emphasized the absence of evidence of deliberate evasion or underpayment, leading to the reversal of the Commissioner (Appeals) orders. The decisions were influenced by previous tribunal judgments supporting the approach of disregarding minor discrepancies in quantity received.

---