2009 (5) TMI 279

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppellant. Shri J.A. Khan, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)] - Heard both sides. 2. The case of the Department is that subsequent to withdrawal of the warehousing facility in respect of petroleum products, the Appellants should have paid the duty on the warehoused quantity instantly. However, as pointed out by the learned Counsel Shri Biswajit Mukherjee, in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 04 explaining the arithmetical calculation. 3. Learned Departmental Representative (SDR) appearing on behalf of the Respondents supports the impugned order. 4. In view of the cited Circular of the Board dated 4-1-2005 requiring the duty payment to be made by 5th October, 2004 and also into account the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. CCE-Coimbatore .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X