9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut payment of duty. On 6.9.2002, out of four storage tanks in the terminal, they had de-boned two tanks, storing MS and HSD, and discharged the duty. The remaining two tanks storing SKO and Naphtha continued to be under bonding along with the pipeline, which is common for all the products connecting the refinery with the terminal. 2. The dispute in the present case relates to non-payment of excise duty on the quantum of MS and HSD available in the pipeline on the date of de-bonding the tanks for storage of MS and HSD. The Revenue proceeded against the appellant to demand and recover the duty on these products lying in the pipeline on the date of de-bonding. The contention of the Revenue is that the pipelines being common, the appellant sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty presently demanded relatable to 6.9.2002 is only Rs. 19,97,845/-. As such, it is the submission of the appellant that on the quantity of excisable goods now in dispute, they have in fact, discharged higher quantum of excise duty when compared to what is demanded with reference to 6.9.2002. Even if it is considered that the de-bonding of pipeline along with storage tank should have been done by the appellant on 6.9.2002 itself, the duty demand as confirmed in the present proceedings is lower than what has been paid at the closure of warehousing provision in 2004. At best, interest liability on the earlier demand can arise. Even after that, the appellant shall be eligible for a refund of excess amount. 3.1 Regarding imposition of penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e pipeline. To that extent, the claim of the appellant that the warehouse quantity was in existence in the pipeline was not technically correct. However, equivalent quantity was only presumed to be in the pipeline as and when the MS and HSD was transmitted through the same. 5.1 In view of the above factual position, we find that the present confirmation of demand of duty for pipeline quantity as on 6.9.2002 is sustainable as the said quantity has been cleared when other products were pumped through the pipeline. However, since the appellants have conceded that MS and HSD of equivalent quantity as deemed to have been bonded for the period after 6.9.2002 till the warehousing provisions were withdrawn, the duty paid latter should be adjusted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
