TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 1175
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enced by the difference between the quantity indicated in the invoice and that in the 'goods receipt notes (GRNs)' recording the actual offloading from the tankers generated for internal use after weighment of tankers - laden and empty. Two notices issued to them, covering the period from November 2004 to March 2009 and from April 2009 to January 2010 dated 2nd December 2009 and 20th April 2010 for recovery of Rs. 98,16,722 and Rs. 21,40,589 respectively, were adjudicated by the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise, vide order dated 18th January 2011, by segregating such consignments as were in excess of the permissible tolerance of 0.4% to uphold recovery of Rs. 72,98,407, along with interest thereon, under rule 14 of CENVAT Credi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tribunal in their own disputes besides that of Neera Enterprises v. Collector of Central of Central Excise, Chandigarh [1998 (104) ELT 382 (Tribunal)] and in Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot v. Bombay Dyeing & Mfg Co. Ltd [1998 (97) ELT 101 (Tribunal)]. It was further argued that the Tribunal in Petronet LNG Limited and others v. Principal Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-I [final order no. [51372-51373 dated 21st October 2019] disposing off appeal no. 52946 of 2016 and 52980 of 2016 against order-in-original no. DLISVTAX001COM0141617 dated 26th July 2016 of Principal Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi] has held that 'book adjustments of allowed loss' had no bearing on the value of service rendered. 4. Learned Authorized Repres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) ELT 382 (T)], Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot v. Bombay Dyeing & Mfg Co Ltd [1998 (97) ELT 101 (T) and host of others on similar lines preclude the recovery of duty in consequence of difference between quantity paid for and actual ascertainment on receipt. and, as far back as 2005, in Savita Chemicals Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Belapur [2005 (182) ELT 130 (Tri.-Mumbai)], it was held that '2. Briefly the facts are that the appellant took Modvat credit on the short received goods as the difference between the ascertained weight and the weight shown in the invoices is less than 2%. The applicant company however lodged claims with the insurance company for the loss and the latter paid up the claims. The case of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here is no evidence of any of inputs having been returned to supplier or rerouted elsewhere. The lower authorities are, themselves, not certain that duties, to the extent of quantity not received, have been re-credited by the manufacturer as is evident from the finding referred to supra. It is only by adverse presumption that the liability under rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 has been ordered for recovery. 8. Furthermore, rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 does not offer any adjustment towards tolerance or allowance and, yet, the lower authorities have deigned to provide for some arbitrary margin; implicit in the sheer arbitrariness is the principle of spreading the entire invoice value, and corresponding duty discharged, over the q....