Per G.A. Brahma Deva:

These are three appeals filed by M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Since the issue involved is common in these three appeals they are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The issue relates to disallowing of packing loss. The Assistant Collector has disallowed loss on the ground that the party has not obtained permission under Rule 56-B. The view taken by the Assistant Commissioner was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

3. It was submitted on behalf of the party that the instant coffee powder is hygroscopic product and there, naturally would be process loss due to coagulation and spillage of the powder during the course of transfer of the powder, quality control checks and ultimate packing of the bulk coffee powder into retail packs.

4. It was also submitted that the appellant had informed the department that a packing loss of 1% of the product is likely to be occurred in case the 56-B procedure is followed. The Appellants representative contended that since the department has granted permission under Rule 56-B on detailed enquiry there was no reason to disallow the loss on the ground and that no permission has been obtained in terms of Rule 56-B.

5. We also take note of the fact that in the very Show-cause Notice itself it was mentioned that

"It is observed from 56-B application that the competent authority has permitted the transit loss of instant coffee to the extent of 1%."

6. It was submitted that the appellants had informed the department that packing loss of 1% whereas process loss i.e. packing loss was incurred by the assessee is 0.51, 0.62 and 0.56 respectively and the same was claimed by the party.

7. Further he said that the very issue involved herein has already been considered by the Tribunal as per Order No. 168/2000 dated 5.1.2000 holding that loss is permissible. He also cited the decisions in the case of U.P. State Cements Corporation Ltd. Vs. UOI reported in 1996 (81) ELT 482 (All) as well as Amitabh Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE, Kanpur reported in 1987 (31) ELT 597 (T) in support of his contention.

8. Smt. Radha Arun appearing for the Revenue justified the findings of the authorities below in disallowing the loss.

9. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides we do not find any justification to disallow the loss. We also take note of the fact that very issue has already been considered by the Tribunal in the very appellants case referred to above. Following the ratio of the same, we accept the contention of the party and accordingly these three appeals are allowed with consequential relief if any.