9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (11) TMI 438 - AT - CustomsDuty demands u/s 11D - Orders-in-Original - Non-filing of appeal against an Order - Res judicata - HELD THAT - It is seen that during the relevant periods the prices of the petroleum products were fixed under the Administered Price Mechanism (APM). The appellants have explained that whenever there is excess collection of duty the same is surrendered to the oil pool account. In the Commissioners of Customs Visakhapatnam and Chennai have already decided the issue in favour of the appellants. These orders have not been appealed against by the Department. Therefore in terms of the Apex Court judgment in the case of CCE v. Bigen Industries Ltd. 2006 (4) TMI 124 - SUPREME COURT the Department cannot be permitted to again raise the same dispute as the issue has reached finality between the appellants and the Department. The issue is also covered by the Tribunal s decision cited supra. In these circumstances the impugned Orders-in-Original are set aside and the appeals are allowed.
Issues:
- Allegation of collecting duty in excess of the amount paid to the Government. - Duty demands confirmed under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944/28(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. - Appeals of M/s. HPCL, M/s. IOC Ltd., and M/s. BPCL for different periods. Analysis: 1. Allegation of Excess Duty Collection: The appellants were alleged to have collected amounts representing duty in excess of what they paid to the Government. The duty demands were confirmed under relevant sections of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the Customs Act, 1962. The issue revolved around whether the appellants had indeed collected duty amounts exceeding what was paid to the Government. 2. Administered Pricing Mechanism (APM) and Duty Collection: During the period in question, petroleum product prices were governed by the Administered Pricing Mechanism (APM) set by the Government of India. The appellants paid duty based on prices fixed under the APM. The duty collected was always Central Excise duty, not Customs duty. The appellants followed a procedure where any excess duty collected was either claimed back from the Government or surrendered through the oil pool account. The appellants argued that due to the APM, sometimes there could be excess duty collection. 3. Legal Precedents and Tribunal Decisions: The appellants cited legal precedents and a Tribunal decision in their favor. They highlighted that previous Orders-in-Original by the Commissioners of Customs in Chennai and Visakhapatnam had favored them, and the Department did not appeal against these decisions. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in a similar case, the appellants argued that the issue had reached finality between them and the Department, preventing the Department from raising the same dispute again. 4. Decision and Outcome: After careful consideration of the facts and legal arguments presented, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellants. The Tribunal noted that the issue had already been decided in favor of the appellants by the Commissioners of Customs in previous orders that were not appealed against. Citing legal precedents and the principle of finality in judgments, the Tribunal set aside the impugned Orders-in-Original and allowed the appeals of the appellants. The decision was based on the fact that the Department could not raise the same dispute again due to the issue reaching finality between the parties. In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment in this case centered around the allegation of excess duty collection by the appellants, the application of the Administered Pricing Mechanism, legal precedents, and the finality of previous decisions in favor of the appellants. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the Orders-in-Original and allow the appeals was based on these key factors and legal principles.
|
