Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 334 - CESTAT BANGALORENon-payment of excise duty - duty on quantum of MS and HSD available in the pipeline on the date of de-bonding the tanks for storage of MS and HSD - contention of the Revenue is that the pipelines being common, the appellant should have de-bonded the MS and HSD in the pipeline also, instead, later on, when SKO and Naphtha were pumped through the same pipeline, the non-duty paid MS and HSD got cleared and mixed up with duty paid MS and HSD - Held that: - Admittedly, the quantity of MS and HSD which are subject matter of dispute have suffered duty as applicable in 2004 when the warehousing provisions were withdrawn. This has been recorded in the impugned order also - The only point is that the MS and HSD in the bonded pipeline as existing on 6.9.2002 got cleared when other petroleum products which were duty-paid were moved through the same pipeline. To that extent, the claim of the appellant that the warehouse quantity was in existence in the pipeline was not technically correct. However, equivalent quantity was only presumed to be in the pipeline as and when the MS and HSD was transmitted through the same. The present confirmation of demand of duty for pipeline quantity as on 6.9.2002 is sustainable as the said quantity has been cleared when other products were pumped through the pipeline. However, since the appellants have conceded that MS and HSD of equivalent quantity as deemed to have been bonded for the period after 6.9.2002 till the warehousing provisions were withdrawn, the duty paid latter should be adjusted against the present demand along with the interest as applicable. Penalty - Held that: - no mala fide intention to evade payment of duty on the part of the appellant. The appellant being a Public Sector Undertaking, rebuttable presumption is created regarding non-existence of malafideness. In the present, there is no such allegation or evidence to intend to evade duty - penalty u/r 25 not justified. Appeal allowed in part.
|