9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 680X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed are stored in storage tanks earmarked for each product. The products are cleared on payment of applicable excise duty. During the impugned period, storage tanks were earmarked commonly for LDO and FO. 2.2 While LDO is classifiable under Chapter Heading no. 2710 19 40, FO is classifiable under heading no. 2710 19 50. The ad valorem rate was common for both the products during the impugned period. However, LDO was subjected to specific duty @ 2.5% per litre in addition to the ad valorem rate. The excise duty rate applicable to LDO during the impugned period was as follows: LDO -(i) 16% (Basic duty) + 2.50% per litre (Specific duty) + Education cess [from 01.03.2006 to 29.02.2008] (ii) 14% (Basic duty) + 2,50 % per litre (Specific duty) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon'ble CESTAT, vide Final Order No.1336-1337/2008 dated 20.11.2008, decided the aforesaid appeals, viz., Appeal No.E/419/2005 and E/777/2005. The summary of the Order is as follows: a. LDO cannot be said to be used in manufacture of FO. b. The goods, i.e., dead stock, cleared by the Appellant shall be treated as clearance of LDO only. Since excise duty applicable to the FO has already been discharged on the quantity of dead stock cleared by the Appellant, only the differential duty is payable, i.e., difference between the ED payable on LDO and ED payable on FO. The appeals are allowed by way of remand for quantification of differential ED liability. 2.7 Following the aforesaid Final Order of Hon'ble CESTAT, the Appellant comput ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The above dispute was not raised in any other transactions covered in the impugned O-I-O. 3.2 The Adjudicating authority ordered as follows:- (i) Ordered payment of an amount of Rs. 1,49,49,281/- for the period Jun.'03 - Jan. '04 and Mar.'04 -Feb.'05 [covered by the CESTAT order dated 20.11.2008]; (ii) Confirmed the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 5,12,15,699/- for the period Feb.'07 - Dec. '09; (iii) Since both the differential duty as above stand entirely paid, the same may be appropriated; and (iv) Adjudicating authority levied the penalty equal to Rs. 5,12,15,699/-. 4. In this connection, we have heard Shri D. Santhana Gopalan, learned Advocate for the appellants and S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) for the Reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o Rs. 5.12 crores for the period 2007-09, the appellant is not disputing the amount of Rs. 4.99 crores as per computation laid down by the CESTAT vide Order dated 20.11.2008. They are aggrieved only in respect of the seven transactions in which the RTP of FO was more than the LDO. The department is of the view that the negative differential duty total amounting to Rs. 12.25 lakhs, which has arisen on account of the above price scenario, is required to be paid by the appellant in terms of section 11D. But the appellant has agitated that when the LDO has been cleared at the price of FO, then higher amount shall be the transaction value and ED computed of transaction value is the actual ED payable. Thus, there is no excess payment of ED to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
