HiOH COURT OF CHHATTJSGARH AT BiLASPUP. DB: Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra mishra & Hon'b!e Sh" R.N. ChandraHar. JJ, Aopellant Tax Case No.44/2009. Union ot india Through Commissioner, Central Excsse and tiustorns, Centrai Excise Bhav»an, Dhamtari Road. TikaraDara. RaiDur (C.G.) 492-001. Vs. ResDonaent M/s. Ganpati Industria! Corporation Ltd., 65-66, Sector-'S', Uria Industrial A.rea, Raipur (C.G.) (ApDeal under Section 35-G of the Ceniral Excise Act, 1944) • r'resenl: Shri Bhishma Klnger, counsel for the appeliant. Shri Aman Keshanvani, counse! for the respondent. -ORAL_O.RD_cJ< (21.06.2010) 1. The appettant has preferred this appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against Uie }uc!gment ofthe Northern Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appeiiate Tribunai (CESTAT) (hereinafter 'the Tribunai') on the substantial questions of law mentioned in paragraph C of the memo of appeal. 2. The facts as Droiected in the imDugned order. are that on inspection of the factorv Dremises of the resoondent herein. shortaae of 16.490 MT of inputs anct 23.649 MT of final products were found. Some cash vouchers in resDect of ioading, unioadina'and shifting charges were also recovered. Notice was issued to the resoondent. After hearinfi the Darties, the "roceedinas were drooDed bv the Adiudicatina Authority on the ground that the difference of shortage of inputs is smal! and the shortage of finai Droduct vras arrived at on estimate basis as no actual welghment was done. On the basis' of the evidence avaiiabie on record produced by the ^'~..^:i.3sie' k S '% "n, 1 C'l J ,^^y- 3. d respondent, it was held that the respondent was undertaking job works under Ruie 57F of the Centrai Excise Rules and loaaing and unloading charges were in resDect of the aoods removed for job work and removai after processlng are mentioned in the vouchers removed from the factory. The Tribunal, after hearing iearned counsei for the respective parties has obsen/ed that the goods received for the job works are to be unloaded and after processing they are to be ioaded in the truck and payment are to be made by the respondent. The respondent has aiso produced relevant deciarations for sending the goods to the job workers from the principal manufacturer for further processing. They have also produced job work chalians and the same were aiso seized bv the visiting revenue officers. The respondent was undertaking job works on behalf of other manufacturer and no demand can be raised on the basis of the cash voucher showina the payment made to the iabourers for loading or unioading goods. The finding of the Commission with respect to t'ne shortage of inputs and nnai products has been confirmed on the ground that the shortege was not on actuai weighment but on estimate basis. After hearing Shri Bhishma Kinger, iearned counse! for the appellant and Shri Aman Kesharwani, counsel for the respondent, we are of the opinion that both t'ne forums beiow have recorded a concurrent findina of fact that the respondent was under iaking job works on behaif of the manufacturer and therefore, no demand can be raised on the basis of cash vouchers showing the payment to the labourers tpr loading and unioading of the goods. Further, that the shortege hgs been estimated without actual weighment, but oniy on the basis of ocular estimation. There is no question of iaw. much iess anv substantial question of iaw, involved for adiudication as proposed by the appe!!ant in the memo of appeal. The appeal being "s \ 2^^ Bini without any substance deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage itseif and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sdf- R.N. Chandrakar Judge f's '^ fr_~—^r—TZ~. ..fc,