Permissible weighment error defeats duty demand and penalties when the discrepancy stays within accepted margin of variation.

Duty demand and penalties were found unsustainable where the alleged weighment discrepancy in cement was only about 1% and the appellate record showed a permissible margin of error of up to 2% under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and the rules. The factual variation was treated as within acceptable limits, and the possibility of differences between weighbridges and weighment methods was noted. As no contrary material dislodged those findings, confirmation of duty and penalty could not be sustained and the Revenue challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the duty demand and penalties were sustainable where the discrepancy in weighment of cement was only about 1% and the lower appellate authority had found that the variation was within the permissible margin of error.

Analysis: The lower appellate authority recorded that the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and the rules made thereunder permitted a maximum permissible error of 2% in weighment of cement. On the facts, the discrepancy worked out to only about 1% of the total quantity cleared during the relevant period. It was also noted that such variation could arise from differences between weighbridges and methods of weighment. No material was shown to dislodge those factual findings.

Conclusion: The demand and penalties were not sustainable, and the Revenue appeal was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld, with the result that the assessee succeeded and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the factual discrepancy in weighment is within the permissible margin of error and no contrary material discredits the appellate findings, confirmation of duty and penalty cannot be sustained.

---