Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Panchkula Versus M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

2017 (9) TMI 781 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

Clandestine removal - Whether Tribunal was right in holding that the Central Excise Duty cannot be demanded from the Respondent as they are not manufacturer or producer of the goods? - Held that: - If any duty is demanded on shortages and excess of the goods found at the premises of the respondent, the same is to be demanded from the refineries, who are manufacturers of the goods - In the present case, it was not found that the respondent-assessee had procured the goods clandestinely without pay .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Ajay Kumar Mittal And Amit Rawal, JJ. Mr. Amit Goyal, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant-revenue Mr. Amrinder Singh, Advocate for the respondent-assessee ORDER Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. The appellant-revenue has filed the instant appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short 'the Act') against the order dated 19.01.2015 (Annexure A-3) in Appeal No. E/2506/2008 claiming the following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether Tribunal was right in holding that 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

reates the responsibility for the payment of Central Excise Duty when the goods are cleared from the factory of production to warehouse or from warehouse to another warehouse, of the consignee? 2. A few facts relevant for the adjudication of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The respondent - M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, (Marketing Division), G.T. Road, Ambala Cantt., Ambala, is engaged in storage of non-duty paid petroleum products and clearing th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ited with the Department. According to the appellant-revenue, the facts regarding the excess sale of HSD over and above quantity receipt of collection of central excise duty were willfully concealed from the Department and were not truly reflected in various statements/returns filed with the Department from time to time. Accordingly, departmental proceedings were initiated against the respondent-assessee and a show cause notice dated 30.12.1999 (Annexure A-1) was issued for demand of Central Exc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ted 19.01.2015, the Tribunal set aside the order holding that the duty can only be demanded from the manufacturer/producer of the goods, whereas, the respondent-assessee was only a dealer. Hence, the instant appeal by the appellant-revenue. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. It has been categorically recorded by the Tribunal in its order dated 19.01.2015 (Annexure A-3) that the respondent-assessee is not a manufacturer of the goods but a registered dealer and therefore, dut .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

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


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version