9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 656X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed across the bar, it will be necessary to make a brief reference to the facts of the case. 2 The dispute relates to the base oil which is being received by the appellant which in turn is being used in manufacturing of final product. The appellant has been availing of cenvat credit on such base oil. A show cause notice was issued on 5th January 2010 by which a demand of duty of Rs. 1,64,40,644/was made in respect of short receipt of base oil during the period from December 2004 to March 2009. The extended period of limitation was also invoked. The appellant was informed that the interest and penalty will be imposed by exercising power under section 11(c) of Central Excise Act,1944. In the show cause notice, allegation in short is that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also a mineral oil. He placed reliance on the various orders passed by the Custom Authorities by which loss of 1% is allowed. He submitted that the notification dated 30th April 1971 in respect of the lubricating base oil was in respect of the storage loss and not the transit loss. 5 We have considered the submissions. The submissions made on behalf of the appellant have been recorded in detail in paragraph 2 of the impugned Judgment and Order. On 21st August 2017 the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court was that the submissions have not been correctly recorded by the Appellate Tribunal. If that be so, the appellant had a remedy available. He tenders across the bar a letter dated 4th May 2015 addressed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal has relied upon a copy of the manual of departmental instructions on excisable manufactured products. In the said manual, different limits have been prescribed for different goods and different methods for transfer etc. The Tribunal relied upon the statement produced by the appellant and noted that it provides that in case of lubricating base oil, permissible limit is 0.1%. The Tribunal held that the limit of 0.1% is in accordance with the directions of the Central Board of Excise and Customs on the subject. Reliance placed in this appeal on the letter dated 30th October 1985 addressed by the Central Board of Excise and Custom to all the Collectors of Central Excise. 9 Firstly, before the Appellate Tribunal, the appellant never r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2008. By the said order, no law is laid down. Moreover, there is nothing in the said order to indicate that the Authority was dealing with the lubricating base oil. The second order is dated 28th March 2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The said order relies upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (supra). The Commissioner of Central Excise has not noticed that the Division Bench was dealing with the Naphta and not the lubricating base oil. Moreover, the said decision is based on admitted position. The same is the case with the order dated 28th March 2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. Therefore, none of the orders which are part of the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
