Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (7) TMI 720 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

2016 (7) TMI 720 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA - TMI - Demand of duty on account of either transferred losses or on failure to furnish re-warehousing certificate - business of refining of crude and marketing various petroleum products thereof. - Held that:- Government notes that the original authority and Commissioner (Appeals) has given detailed findings with regard to factual aspect of submission of re-warehousing certificate and observed that the same were not submitted by the applicant in the prescr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

it the prescribed proof of their receipt/re-warehousing despite several opportunities given to them in remand proceedings from time to time. - Revision application rejected - demand confirmed. - F.No.195/380/2012-RA-CX - ORDER NO. 55/2016-CX - Dated:- 31-3-2016 - SMT. RIMJHIM PRASAD, JOINT SECRETARY ORDER: This Revision Application is filed by M/S Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd, (hereinafter referred to as the Applicant) against the Order-in-Appeal No. BC/331/M11/2011-12 dated 27.02.2012 pa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uly and August 1997 the applicant transferred kerosene, LOBS, ATF etc. from Mahul Refinery to up-country warehouse. 12 Show Cause Notices were issued to pay duty on account of either transferred losses or on failure to furnish re-warehousing certificate. 2.1. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise vide Order-in-Original No. 117/98/DC/BPS dated 25109.1998 adjudicated the 12 Show Cause Notices and confirmed duty demand of ₹ 2,42,09,911/- after allowing 0.5% and 0.75% as condonation losses .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fresh taking into consideration the condonable loss. 2.3. The Joint Commissioner vide Order-in-Original No. 04/2003/JC/RLM dated 16.04.2003 held that Show Cause Notice issued at Sr. No. 1 and 10 are not in dispute, that in show cause notices at Sl. No. 3,4,7 and 9 re-warehousing certificates were submitted by the applicant, that in show cause notices at Sl. No. 2,5,6 and 8 allowed condonable loss and duty calculated accordingly, SCN at Sl. No. 12 the same was not disputed as the duty charged on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sed by the said Order-in-Original stating that there was no penalty imposed in the first adjudication order and same could not have done in subsequent de-novo proceedings 2.5. The applicant filed appeal before the Revisionary Authority who vide order no, 358/04 dated 29.10.2004 held that "those cases where submissions of re-warehousing certificates is the issue, the authorities below held that proper endorsements are not present Government notes that the applicants are reputed NavRatna Publ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ct of only those cases where submission of re-warehousing certificate is the issue and confirmed the duty of ₹ 1,41,94,512 involved under Rule 156 B (2) read with Rule 173 N of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 and for recovery of interest thereof. 3. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original the applicant filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide Order-in-Appeal No BC/331/M-II/2011-12 dated 27.02.2012 who rejected the same. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tion port and was received back at the applicant's refinery at Mumbai. That the products were duly received back into the tanks of applicant's refinery and duly accounted in the stock register RG-I maintained by them at the refinery. That the relevant D 3 filed in this regard and the re-warehoused AR3As were produced for verification but have not been considered by the adjudicating authority. 4.2. That the duty demand of ₹ 3,15,255 /- and ₹ 84,80,524 /- (Total ₹ 87,95,7 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

her as products sent by the same tanker, on the overall there was only a net gain. The total accountal of the product is summarized below: S. No. Quantity shipped Quantity received Loss/Gain Net/Gain 7 465.349 1,011.944 546.595 - 10 2,449.366 1,925.643 -476.277 7 0.318 That the total voyage of the vessel Basaveshwara, there was no loss in the entire voyage but only a gain and hence the applicants submit that there is no duty liability arising in the voyage. That the AR3A for Show Cause Notice at .....

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 entire volume handled which would include quantity received from outside. That the Board circular itself is mentioning that the condonation is with regard to loss in storage, handling of products and deliveries by pipelines, which is including the product received. That the circular also does not restrict it only to the quantity produced but is covering the aspect of loss in the activities. That it is not disputed that this quantity was stored and handled in the refinery during the month and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

377; 3,04,987/- after re-computation, the loss is only ₹ 72,579/- which should be added to the above amount of ₹ 8,71,477/thereby resulting a duty demand of ₹ 9,44,056 /- 4.6. That the duty as confirmed by the first Order-in-Original has been paid as pre deposit and hence the question of interest does not this case. That the Order-in-Original did not impose any interest on the duty demand. 4.7. The applicant placed reliance on following case laws: Suresh Tobacco & Company V .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. Ms. P. Vedavalli, Senior Manager (Finance), HPCL attended the hearing on behalf of the applicant who reiterated the grounds of revision application and also submitted additional written submission reiterating the same grounds and stated that demands pertaining to SCNs at Sr. No. 1,11,10 are being contested. That Sr. No. 1 & 11 question of endorsement at receiving end does not arise as goods were received back by the refinery due to technical problems and were not re-warehoused. 6. Governme .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

icated the 12 Show Cause Notices and confirmed duty demand of ₹ 2,42,09,911/- after allowing 0.5% and 0.75% as condonation losses. Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No. RJB/48/M-II/2000 dated 08.09.2000 held that the computation of recoverable duty as correct, order passed in respect of show cause notices at serial. no. 1 and 10 is also correct and in respect of re-warehoused certificates as claimed by the applicant. The case was remanded back to Joint Commissioner to decide the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

llowed and duty calculated accordingly, in Show Cause Notice at Sl. No. 12 the duty charged on transfer loss in excess of condonable limit has not disputed by the applicant. Thus only show cause notice at Sl. No. 11 is in dispute: Thus the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand to the extent of ₹ 1,39,59,176/- after allowing condonable losses and also imposed penalty of Commissioner(Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No. PKA/90/M-II/2003 dated 29.08.2003 upheld the Order-in-Original as far .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

bai-Il vide Order-in-Original No. SP/19/ADC/M-II/2010 dated 10.01.2011 observing that re-warehousing certificates were an issue only in show cause notices no. 1,10,11 and therefore considered only these three cases and confirmed the duty amounting to ₹ 1,41,94,512/-. Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No BC/331/M-II/201112 dated 27.02.2012 rejected the appeal of the applicant. Now, the applicant has filed this Revision Application before the Central Government on the grounds menti .....

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 applicants are reputed NavRatna Public Sector Undertaking & they submit that proper accounting of the subject goods has been done. They also submit that the deposit of duty has already been made. Hence, Government is of the opinion that factual position is to be ascertained by the lower authority by making reference to the jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities. The Applicants are also directed to do the same. 14, Hence, the matter is remanded to the lower authority partially, as speci .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eceived by them and that in the subject case assesse had been asked to of ARS A for necessary verification. present also assesse could not submit any further evidences of re-warehousing of the said goods and which can be confirmed from assessee's letter dated 04.11.2010 that therein they have stated in their reply that "copies of duly re-warehoused AR 34 has to be sent by receiving location Excise Superintendent to dispatch location Superintendent and being an internal n7atter of Excise .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

harge of the warehouse of removal in the manner laid down in the said Rule and a/so duplicate copy of AR 3A's application endorsed with the said Rule and a/so duplicate copy of AR3AS application endorsed with the re-warehousing certificate has a/so not been received by such Range Officer from the officer-in-charge of the re-warehouse of destination in such case the consignor has not submitted the sufficient proof of re-warehousing of the said goods sent from their refinery and hence they are .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rehousing certificate and submit the same to the concerned Central Excise officer within 90 days of transport permit. Non-submission of the same within 90 days would make the appellant to pay duty. 7. Further, in terms of Rule 156 B (2), if the appellant procures the said certificate with proper endorsement, after the mandatory 90 days and the same is produced before the proper Central Excise officer, then he can seek refund of the duty paid under Rule 156 A. 8. The appellants claimed that they .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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