2000 (12) TMI 169

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ,62,825.00 2. M/s. Saket Petroleum (P) Ltd. 4,19,572.00 4,19,572.00 3 Biecco Lawrie India Ltd. 3,43,046.00 3,43,046.00 4. M/s. Shaw Oils (P) Ltd 10,88,869.00 10,88,869.00 3.Ld. Adv.s Dr. Samir Chakraborty and Shri K.K. Banerjee appearing for the appellants submit that the demands in the present case have been confirmed against the appellants, who were high-sea sale buyers of oil from M/s. Indian Oil Corpn. on the ground that demurrage charges, bank charges and the ocean loss are required to be included in the assessable value of the superior kerosene oil imported by M/s. IOC. Dr. Chakraborty submits that the Commissioner has relied upon the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Panchmahal Steel Ltd. v. CCE, Rajkot - 1998 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ble in the assessable value. 5.As regards the ocean loss it has been explained to us that the deduction claimed by the appellants are on account of the loss of the oil which might have occurred on account of spillage or evaporation or any other count. However, Dr. Chakraborty agrees that the payments are made to their sellers in respect of the entire quantity inclusive of the loss. 6.Shri K.K. Banerjee, appearing for some of the appellants adopted the arguments advanced by Dr. Chakraborty and also submitted that the demands in question were hopelessly barred by limitation. He drew our attention to the relevant paragraphs of the order of the Commissioner. 7.Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, ld. SDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Strong reliance i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e by the appellants to M/s. IOC we hold that such losses are not permissible deductions. 10.Apart from the merits of the case it has been strongly argued before us that the demands are barred by limitation. The Revenue department was aware of the practice of the issuance of two invoices by M/s. IOC, which practice was also debated upon by the various Commissionerates. As such it is the contention of the appellants that in view of the above admission of the adjudicating authority, the demands are required to be held as barred by limitation. However, it is seen that the Commissioner has recorded a finding that the assessments were provisional. The above finding has been strongly assailed by the appellants by submitting that all the assessmen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X