TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 651X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hearing, we verified one statement relating to furnace oil for the quarter of April to June 1994 and after going through the report, we find that the appellants have maintained the accounts and the statement clearly shows that the quantity received in the tank as per OTS has suffered duty. Since the entire quantity received in the tank as per OTS which is non-duty paid petroleum product has suffered duty, we find that the submission of the appellant that the Department has ignored the quantity of duty paid petroleum product receipts have not been taken into account for calculation of differential duty is correct - Decided in favour of assessee. - E/2944/2012-DB - Final Order No .20229/2014 - Dated:- 14-2-2014 - Per : B.S.V.MURTHY; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e duty paid stocks. All the three types of products were stored in common bonded tank in a co-mingled condition. The disputes have arisen with regard to valuation as well as the clearance of non-duty paid /duty paid stock from such tanks. In addition to the above, the appellants were also engaged in trading of petroleum products which they received from other oil marketing companies and sold it without discharging into the tank which is called bridging in OMC parlance. 4. W.e.f. 01/03/1994, the rate of duty applicable to petroleum products was changed from specific rates of duty to ad valorem rate of duty. The assessable value to be adopted for payment of excise duty was fixed by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas for various pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertain deductions claimed by the appellants are inadmissible. 7. On the first issue, appellants submitted that they had submitted detailed calculation on a daily basis to the Commissioner, according to which they had paid duty on the entire quantity of non-duty paid petroleum products as per OTS. The differential duty demand had arisen because the investigating officer and the Department did not take into account the quantity of duty paid petroleum products received in the tanks. They had also submitted the Chartered Accountants certificate. When the matter came up last time before this Tribunal, we had required the Department to do a sample study and get a report. The report shows that the statements prepared by the appellants are acce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll the oil companies. Therefore in terms of the said Circular all the oil companies were required to adopt the said price for the purpose of payment of duty and the same was required to be charged on the customer. ii. The Appellants further submit that dealer commissioner which has been mentioned in the invoice is not collected from the customer as alleged by the department. It is further submitted that the appellants have in fact paid duty on the entire assessable value as determined based on the price circular issued by the Ministry without claiming any deduction on account of dealer's Commission. This would be clear form an illustrative example to show how the amount to be charged on the Customer is determined. Price list and I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ealers Commissioner as declared in the Invoice Rs. 1216.00 Rs. 212.00 Total Rs. 1428 J** Price received from customer as declared in the Invoice Rs. 192333.00 * Excise duty is paid on the entire assessable value without claiming any deduction towards dealer's commission **The price received from the Customer is after deducting the dealer's commission. We find that the above submissions are valid and acceptable. 9. As regards siding and shunting charges, it has been held that the same are not deductible. However, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble value. Further it was submitted that the Commissioner(Appeals) for subsequent periods on the very same issue has allowed the appeals and set aside the demands as detailed below: a. Order-in-appeal No.43/2004 dt. 31/03/2004. b. Order-in-appeal No.11/2004 dt. 26/01/2004. c. Order-in-appeal No.12/2004 dt. 26/02/2004. The appeals filed by the Revenue against these Orders-in-Appeal were dismissed for want of COD clearances. It was also submitted that in similar circumstances, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal on merits vide Final order No.25265 and 25266/2013 dt. 29/04/2013. 10. In view of the above discussion we find that the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order is set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
