TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (3) TMI 270
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alty of Rs. 2,000/- on them. Against this order, the appellants filed the present appeal. 2. The facts of the case are that on 1-5-1991 the Central Excise Officers visited the factory of the appellants. On physical verification of the stock of the molasses for the sugar season in the year 1990-91, the Central Excise Officers found an excess of 4492.30 Qtls. of molasses. This excess was determined on the basis of dip reading excluding foam. Since this excess was not specifically explained to the Central Excise Officers a show cause notice was issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why the excess quantity should not be confiscated and why a penalty should not be imposed on them. 3. In reply to the show cause notice ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Central Excise authorities was the method of calculating the quantity of molasses on the basis of dip reading. The learned Counsel submits that the method of dip reading suffers from a number of defects in as much as Brix of molasses changes and varies on account of factors over which the appellants had no control. He submits that the method of dip reading for calculating the quantity of molasses in the tanks is found to be incorrect. He submits that the Commissioner issued instructions to be followed while calculating the quantity of molasses. The learned Counsel submits that the method was by finding the volume of the molasses and multiplied by specific gravity/density at the time when stock was physically verified. He submits that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mits that the appellants have cited instructions issued by the Excise Commissioner but those instructions are dated 27-12-1991 whereas physical verification on the basis of dip reading and calibration chart was done on 1-5-1991. He submits that on the date of physical verification of molasses it was by adopting dip reading method; that these instructions were not available therefore he submits they cannot be taken for determination the weight in the instant case. The ld. JDR reiterates the findings of the lower authorities and submits that the molasses found in excess have rightly been confiscated and that because of this infringement of non-recording the correct weight a personal penalty is justifiable. 6. Heard the submissions of bo....