2009 (5) TMI 279 - AT - Central Excise

Case of the Department is that subsequent to withdrawal of the warehousing facility in respect of petroleum products, the Appellants should have paid the duty on the warehoused quantity instantly - Board in its Circular dated 4-1-2005 clarified that the duty obligation could be discharged by 5th October, 2004. It is the case of the Appellants that in their case the duty obligation has been discharged well before 5th of October, 2004 and therefore no interest is payable by him - we are of the view that no interest is payable by the Appellants if they have discharged the entire duty liability by the specified date 5th October 2004. However, as regards the arithmetical calculation given by the Appellants in their letters dated 30-9-2004 and 23-12-2004. which have not been taken into account by the adjudicating Commissioner, the matter is remanded to the original Authority for the limited purpose of re-hearing the Appellants in respect of the arithmetical mistake

Summary

The judgement from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, KOLKATA, 2009 (5) TMI 279, involved a case where the Department claimed that the Appellants should have paid duty on warehoused petroleum products immediately after the warehousing facility was withdrawn. The Appellants argued that they had discharged their duty obligation well before the specified date of 5th October 2004. The Board's Circular dated 4-1-2005 clarified that duty could be paid by 5th October 2004, and the Tribunal, considering this circular and a previous decision, ruled that no interest was payable if the duty was paid by the specified date. However, the Tribunal remanded the case to the original Authority to re-hear the Appellants regarding an arithmetical mistake in the duty amount calculation, giving the Appellants an opportunity for a fresh hearing. The appeal was ultimately disposed of on these terms. The judgement was delivered by Shri S.S. Kang, Vice-President, and Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T). The Appellant was represented by S/Shri Biswajit Mukherjee and Shovendu Banerjee, Advocates, while the Respondent was represented by Shri J.A. Khan, SDR. The order was pronounced and dictated in open court.