Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. I.O.C. Ltd vs Cce, Jaipur on 1 May, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST BLOCK NO. 2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI COURT II E/STAY APPLICATION NO. 122/07 IN & EXCISE APPEAL NO. 122 OF 2007 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 251 9GRM]/JPR-I//2006 dated 11.10.2006 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Customs & Central Excise, Jaipur] For approval and signature: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President, Honble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? M/s. I.O.C. Ltd. Appellants Vs. CCE, Jaipur Respondent
Appearance:
Shri L.P. Asthana, Advocate for the appellants, Shri Sanjay Kumar, Departmental Representative, for the respondent Coram:
Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President, Honble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 1st May, 2008 FINAL ORDER NO._________________ dated __________ Per S.S. Kang:
Applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. In this case demand was raised by taking into consideration retail price of petroleum products which were sold by company owned and company operated petrol pumps. (CoCo). Contention of the appellants is that during some period in dispute depot was not the place of removal as per Central Excise Act, therefore, the freight from warehouse to retail outlet is to be deducted from assessable value but while confirming the demand this deduction is not allowed. Contention is also that applicant had submitted reconciliation statement and as per reconciliation statement their duty liability comes to Rs. 1,68,000/- which they had already deposited vide TR challan dated 25.3.2003. Contention is that this deposit was not taken into consideration on the ground that the applicant failed to show that this deposit pertains to the present demand. Applicant also pleaded time bar aspect.
2. Contention of the Revenue is that instead of various opportunities granted by the adjudicating authority the applicant failed to produce documentary evidence in support of their claim. Learned SDR also pointed out that the applicant failed to produce copies of invoices for the relevant period during the proceedings as the applicant informed the Revenue that they can produce only invoices for 3 months. Therefore, demand is rightly made.
3. We find that in this case demand is confirmed after taking into consideration sale price of petroleum products at company owned and company operated petrol pumps. The applicant asked for abatement for transportation charges as during same period in dispute depot was not the place of removal as per Central Excise Act. Applicant also submitted that they will produce evidence in support reconciliation statement submitted by them for arriving at exact amount of demand. In these circumstances we find that it is fit case for re-consideration by the adjudicating authority. Therefore, impugned order is set aside after waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. Accordingly, stay petition is allowed and appeal is disposed of by way of remand.
(Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.) (S.S. KANG) VICE PRESIDENT (RAKESH KUMAR) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Dated 1st May, 2008-05-01 RK