2000 (11) TMI 275 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit.
2. Miscellaneous application for additional evidence.
3. Quantum of goods and duty demand.
4. Assessable value and includibility of service station license fees.
5. Demand u/s 11D of the Central Excise Act.
6. Imposition of penalty.

Summary:

1. Waiver of Pre-deposit:
The Tribunal granted waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts involved in all the appeals, allowing the appeals to be taken up for final disposal.

2. Miscellaneous Application for Additional Evidence:
The miscellaneous application was allowed, and the documents were taken on record.

3. Quantum of Goods and Duty Demand:
The appellants, holders of Central Excise Registration Certificate, were involved in storing and transferring petroleum products under various arrangements. The Tribunal found the formula suggested by the appellants' counsel rational and reasonable for determining the quantum of excisable goods cleared from the premises. The matter was remanded to the lower authority for re-determination based on the out turn statements.

4. Assessable Value and Includibility of Service Station License Fees:
The Tribunal followed the decision in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation (1999 (108) E.L.T. 402) and directed the Commissioner to re-determine the assessable value in light of this decision. Retail service charges were deemed not includible in the assessable value as they were post-clearance costs. The issue of service charge liability in transit was to be settled as per the Board's instructions.

5. Demand u/s 11D of the Central Excise Act:
The Tribunal agreed with the appellants that the amendment to Section 11D by the Finance Act, 2000, made it applicable only to excisable goods and registered persons required to pay duty. The demand for duty on imported petroleum products under Section 11D was not justified. The matter was remanded for re-determination under the amended Section 11D.

6. Imposition of Penalty:
The Tribunal set aside the order of penalty, noting that the case required de novo determination of the quantum of assessable value and duty. The lower authority was directed to reconsider the imposition of penalty after giving the appellants an opportunity to present their case.

Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed by remand for de novo adjudication, with the appellants permitted to submit further evidence and documents. The pre-deposit made was to be dealt with as per the instructions of the Government of India.