Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, LTU, Chennai

2015 (10) TMI 1920 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Demand of Differential duty - Penalty u/s 11AC - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Held that:- Appellants were issued with SCN alleging suppression of facts for the subsequent period after the above OIO dt. 30.3.2007. Once the department has accepted the RTP price determined by the appellants in the above order, there is no justification for invoking the suppression for imposition of penalty. Further considering the period involved relates to the transitional period when all the oil .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s CCE Raipur - [2013 (1) TMI 616 - SUPREME COURT. Whereas in the present case Revenue has not come out with any evidence on allegation of suppression of facts, whereas it is established beyond doubt that appellants have clearly informed the facts to the department on 19.10.2004 which is on record. - there is no justification for invoking Section 11AC for imposition of equal penalty liable for imposition of penalty under Section 11AC - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. E/80/2009 - FINAL .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

CL, the entire products are cleared to IOCL. Appellants have also cleared Carbon Block Feed Stock (CBFS) during the period from Sept 04 to Dec 05. Adjudicating authority in his impugned order confirmed the differential duty demand of ₹ 3,52,31,054/- on CBFS and dropped the demand for other periods. He confirmed the demand for the period from 6.9.2004 to Dec 05 under proviso to Section 11A (1) along with interest and also appropriated entire duty amount and interest of ₹ 23,02,911/- p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

He submits that till 5.9.2004, the clearances of petroleum products were under bond to IOCL under the warehousing provisions and duty to be paid by the installations was withdrawn w.e.f. 6.9.2004 and duty on petroleum products are to be discharged by refinery itself. He submits that immediately after withdrawal of warehousing provisions, the appellant vide letter dt.19.10.2004 informed the jurisdictional AC on the stock of the goods kept under Bond and paid duty by taking the Refinery Transfer .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cepted RTP for computing transaction value and the RTP has been accepted by the department. In the present case, SCN was issued for disputing valuation adopted based on RTP. He drew our attention paras 6 & 6.2 of CPCL's reply to SCN vide letter dt. 19.9.08 to the adjudicating authority at pages 37 to 46 of the paper book and refers to Heading (F) and para-7 of the reply. However, the adjudicating authority in the impugned order at para-20 has alleged that there is suppression of facts. H .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

or invoking the suppression of facts for imposition of penalty for the subsequent period. He relied the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Uniworth Textiles Ltd. Vs CCE Raipur - 2013 (288) ELT 161 (SC). 4. On the other hand, Ld. A.R reiterated the findings of OIO. Regarding appellants relying Commissioner s order dt. 30.3.2007, he submits that adjudicating authority has given a clear findings at para 16.10 (page 31) and stated that this product CBFS is not covered by earlier OIO. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of payment of excise duty on petroleum products had undergone major shift from depot/warehouse to refinery itself w.e.f. 6.9.2004. On a perusal of appellant s letter dt. 19.10.2004, we find the appellants have clearly informed the jurisdictional AC, Central Excise the quantity of stock which was lying in their bonded tanks as on 6.9.2004 and they worked out the duty liability and submitted the documents for each of the product and paid excise duty also field ER-1 returns for the month of Septem .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version