2018 (2) TMI 1435 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - Appellant contested the show cause notice on the ground that the entire stock at the warehousing terminal at Ghatkesar Secunderabad was cleared from the terminal on payment of duty, while Revenue s case they should have discharged the duty liability i.e. 06.09.2004, on price prevailing on that day - Held that - identical issue decided in respondent own case HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. Versus CCE., VISAKHAPATNAM 2010 (4) TMI 951 - CESTAT BANGALORE , where it was held that If the Revenue authorities of all over India are accepting the fact that the transaction value of the petroleum goods consequent to withdrawal of the warehousing facility has to be on the transaction value on the date of clearance, we do not find any reason for non-application of the said procedure in this case. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal filed by Revenue against Order-in-Original No.07/2007-C.E.-Commr. dated 31.12.2007.
- Dispute over duty liability on petroleum products warehoused at HPVCL Secunderabad Terminal.
- Interpretation of Board Circular dated 14.09.2004 regarding payment of duty on the day of withdrawal of warehousing facility.
- Comparison with a previous Tribunal decision in appeal No.E/22/2008.
- Application of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for duty payment.
- Consistency in Revenue authorities' approach across different Commissionerates.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the Order-in-Original related to duty liability on petroleum products warehoused at HPVCL Secunderabad Terminal. The Central Government withdrew the warehousing facility, making the stocks liable for duty payment. The Adjudicating Authority dropped the demands raised by the Revenue but confirmed interest for belated payment of duty liability.

2. The Revenue contended that the duty liability should have been discharged based on the price prevailing on the day of withdrawal of the warehousing facility, as per the Board Circular dated 14.09.2004. They argued that the duty should have been paid for the stock lying on 06.09.2004, the day of withdrawal, even if the clearances were made later.

3. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision in appeal No.E/22/2008 related to a similar issue with the same respondent. The Tribunal's decision in that case favored the respondent, emphasizing the application of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for duty payment. The Tribunal noted the consistency in the approach of Revenue authorities across different Commissionerates in accepting the transaction value of warehoused goods cleared post withdrawal of warehousing facility.

4. After considering the submissions and records, the Tribunal found that the issue was settled by its previous decision involving the same respondent. The Tribunal reiterated the principle that duty liability on goods in warehouses after withdrawal of warehousing facility could be discharged as per Rule 8, indicating that duty payment could be made when the goods are cleared. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the Revenue's appeal based on the established precedent and consistent application of duty payment procedures across different regions.