9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 713X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was normal levy of duty on the appellant in respect of such clearances. Policy of the Government was that Kerosene for ultimate distribution under the Public Distribution System (PDS) should not be subjected to levy of excise duty. This intention of the Government is clear from para-4 of the Circular No.796/29/2004-CX. dt. 4.9.2004 which is reproduced as under : Petroleum products - Warehousing facility without payment of duty withdrawn Circular No. 796/29/2004-CX., dated 4-9-2004 F.No. 261/27/3/2001-CX8 Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi Subject : Withdrawal of the warehousing facility for removal of petroleum products without payment of duty from the refin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of issuance of the notification on1.3.2005. During the interregnum period, there was confusion on the part of the revenue administration whether to levy duty on the same Kerosene cleared by the appellant meant for PDS through IOCL. Appellant was subjected to levy of duty for the months of January 2005 & February 2005 in absence of the notification. When Notification No.4/2005-CE dt. 1.3.2005 ultimately exempted the PDS kerosene from levy of duty, it also conveyed the same rationale what that was the intention of the circular to the extent extracted herein before. Therefore, the adjudicating authority granted refund of the duty paid by the appellant in respect of Kerosene cleared during the months of January 2005 and February 2005 to IOCL w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... excise duty, as that was the intention conveyed through the above circular, there shall not be confusion to levy excise duty on PDS kerosene because issuance of notification was delayed by nearly 6 months. It can be said that Notification dt. 1.3.2005 having same object to exempt the PDS Kerosene from excise duty as was the policy of the State, should not be read in a pedantic sense to rule out retrospective application thereof. That needs interpretation in a broader sense to achieve the public purpose of not burdening consumers under PDS. Therefore, theorder of ld. Commissioner (Appeals) fails to stand. Appeal is allowed accordingly. 8. To reach to the above conclusion, we are guided by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of W.P.I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
