9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Determination of Customs duty on imported vegetable oils for the manufacture of vanaspati and refined oil u/s Notification No. 16/2000-Cus. dated 6-3-2000, discrepancy in the quantity of vegetable oils received, applicability of CBEC Circular No. 95/2002-Cus. dated 23-12-02 for duty determination.
Summary: 1. The respondent imported vegetable oils for manufacturing vanaspati and refined oil at a concessional rate of duty u/s Notification No. 16/2000-Cus. However, a discrepancy of 145.6 MT was found between the quantity imported and received, leading to a demand for Customs duty of Rs. 5,43,078/- and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed by the adjudicating authority. 2. The ld. DR argued that the respondent, having imported goods under bond, is liable to pay duty on the shortage as they did not challenge the Bill of Entries, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Flock India v. CCE, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.). 3. On behalf of the respondent, it was contended that the Bill of Entry was based on an ullage report taken before unloading, but duty should be determined based on shore tank receipt quantity per CBEC Circular No. 95/2002-Cus. The discrepancy of 145.6 MT was attributed to loss in transit, supported by a Tribunal decision in Mahavir Vanaspati v. CCE, Ludhiana, 2004 (65) RLT 64 (Tribunal). 4. The Tribunal found the key issue to be the basis for duty determination, whether on ullage report or shore tank receipt as per CBEC Circular No. 95/2002-Cus. The Commissioner (Appeals) rightly set aside the duty demand based on the circular, noting no dispute in goods assessment. The appeal by the Revenue was rejected, upholding the Commissioner's decision. *(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)*
|
