2017 (5) TMI 1385 - AT - Central Excise

Petroleum products - deemed exports - supply to EOU - demand of duty on stock after withdrawing warehousing benefit - Held that - it is the admitted position that the goods lying in stock at the installation are cleared only to KDPP and KPCL who are entitled to exemption based on end-use certificate and this fact is admitted in para 15 of the impugned order - the impugned goods are eligible for exemption at the time of removal thereof from the installation and no duty is payable on the quantity lying in stock at the installation consequent to withdrawal of warehousing facility - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeals against confirmed duty with interest based on impugned orders passed by Commissioner regarding withdrawal of warehousing facility for petroleum products and demand of duty on remaining stock of LSHS at installations.

Analysis:
1. Facts and Background: The appellant is involved in refining and marketing petroleum products through installations and depots. The issue revolves around the withdrawal of warehousing facility for petroleum products, specifically Low Sulphur Heavy Stock (LSHS), and the demand of duty on stock held at installations Nallalam and Mylatty.

2. Legal Arguments by Appellant: The appellant argued that the impugned order misinterpreted the relevant circulars and ignored judicial precedents. They contended that exemptions for specific end-users like KDPP and KPCL continued even after the withdrawal of warehousing facility. The appellant cited Circulars clarifying that exemptions would still apply for products cleared to specified end-users without payment of duty.

3. Provisional Assessment and Stock Clearance: The appellant highlighted that the mechanism for provisional assessment was not available at the time of withdrawal of warehousing facility. They emphasized that the stock of LSHS cleared to exempted customers was in compliance with Notification No.6/2002, and any storage losses were within permissible limits as per CBEC circulars.

4. Judicial Precedents and Circular Compliance: The appellant relied on previous Tribunal decisions and circulars to support their claim that exemption under Notification No.6/2002 should not be withdrawn upon the withdrawal of warehousing facility. They argued that the stock cleared to exempted customers should not be subject to duty.

5. Respondent's Stand and Tribunal Decision: The respondent reiterated the findings of the impugned order. After considering submissions and precedents, the Tribunal held in favor of the appellant. They noted that goods cleared to exempted customers were eligible for exemption at the time of removal from the installation, and no duty was payable on the stock remaining at the installation post withdrawal of warehousing facility.

6. High Court Observations: The Tribunal referenced a High Court decision in the appellant's case, emphasizing that exemptions for specific end-users continued even after the withdrawal of warehousing facility. The High Court's observations supported the Tribunal's decision to set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals of the appellant with consequential reliefs.

This detailed analysis covers the key legal issues, arguments presented, relevant precedents, and the final decision of the Tribunal based on the withdrawal of warehousing facility for petroleum products and the demand of duty on the remaining stock of LSHS at the installations.