TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1920X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use to the Refinery itself and also considering the fact that there was no sale of CBFS as it is captively consumed by IOCL there is no suppression of facts with an intent to evade excise duty. In order to invoke suppression of facts for imposition of penalty under Section 11AC, there should be mens rea as settled by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Uniworth Textiles Ltd. Vs 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 impositio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and submits that they have paid entire duty amount along with interest before adjudication and also paid 25% of duty towards penalty within 30 days on 30.1.2015. 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products were under bond to IOCL under the warehousing provisions and duty to be paid by the installations was withdrawn w.e.f. 6.9.2004 and duty on petroleum products are to be discharged by refinery itself.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 Price (RTP). He drew our attention to the above letter which is enclosed at page 4 of syn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. The adjudicating authority has rightly invoked suppression of facts for imposing equal penalty. 5. After hearing both sides and also on perusal of records, we find that the short issue in this appeal is limited to the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC as the appellants have already paid duty and interest which was already approp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsidering the period involved relates to the transitional period when all the oil industry, PSUs switched over to different mechanism of payment of excise duty on the petroleum products from ware house to the Refinery itself and also considering the fact that there was no sale of CBFS as it is captively consumed by IOCL there is no suppression of facts with an intent to evade excise duty. In order to invoke suppression of facts for imposition of penalty under Section 11AC, there should be mens rea as settled by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Uniworth Textiles Ltd. Vs CCE Raipur - 2013 (288) ELT 161 (SC). Whereas in the present case Revenue has not come out with any evidence on allegation of suppression of facts, whereas it is est ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
