9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Advocate appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Shri K. Sambi Reddi, learned JDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue. 3. We heard both sides. The issue in these appeals relates to the question of assessment of bulk liquid cargo. The Respondents imported bulk liquid cargo which is crude oil. In first two cases relating to Orders-in-Appeal Nos. 4 & 5 /2006, the Respondent paid duty on the basis of the shore tank quantity. In the other case relating to OIA Nos. 6 & 7, even though the respondents discharged the duty liability based on the ship ullage report, later they filed refund claim on the basis of various decisions and Board's instructions, which held that duty should have been paid only on the basis of the shore tank quantity. The Origin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion taken by the Revenue is that the Apex Court in the case of M/s. H. M. Bags Manufacturer v. CCE -1997 (94) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) has observed that the circular/order passed under Section 37B of the Central Excise Act, 1994 is effective from the date of its Notification or Publication. 4.1 With regard to the other appeal, the grounds of appeal by the Revenue are as follows: The importer has not disputed the onboard ullage in respect of the Bills of Entry detailed in Speaking Orders No. 15/2005 and 16/2005 both dated 24-6-2005 and they have finally assessed accordingly. The goods were cleared for home consumption and taken out of customs charge and therefore, the assessment on shore tank measurement is irrelevant. The shore tank ullage was pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BPCL v. CC, Mumbai - 2003 (158) E.L.T. 221 5.1 Further, with regard to the granting of refund, the learned Advocate relied on the following case laws: (i) Karnataka Power v. CC, Chennai - 2002 (143) E.L.T. 482 (S.C.) (ii) Goa Shipyard Ltd. v. CC, Sahar - 2007 (219) E.L.T. 888 (Tri.) = 2006 (72)RLT 479 (Tri.) (iii) Whirlpool of India v. CC, Mumbai - 2007 (211) E.L.T. 223 (Tri.) (iv) Kudremukh Iron & Steel v. CC, Bangalore - By Final Order No. 583/2007 (Tri.) = 2007 (217) E.L.T. 286 (Tri.) (v) Technosales Co v. CC, Bangalore - 2006 (200) E.L.T. 296 (Tri.) (vi) Jindal Vijayanagar Steel v. CC, Mangalore - 2006 (206) E.L.T. 529 (Tri.) (vii) CCE, Cochin v. OEN India Ltd. - 2006 (202) E.L.T. 836 (Tri.) 6. We have gone through the records ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
