9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07 - Dated:- 16-5-2007 - S/Shri P.G. Chacko, P. Karthikeyan, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri K.S. Venkatagiri, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri V. Seshagiri Rao, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - After examining the records and hearing both sides, we are of the view that the appeals themselves require to be finally disposed of at this stage. Accordingly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xemption under Notification No. 22/2003-C.E. The department took the view that, with the withdrawal of warehousing facility, the stock of petroleum products in the appellant s warehouse should have instantly suffered duty. This view made its way into a show-cause notice, which was contested. In adjudication of the dispute, the original authority confirmed demand of duty of over Rs. 15 lakhs (along ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. 4-1-2005. According to ld. SDR, the Board s clarification did not mean that petroleum products warehoused prior to 4-9-2004 could be removed after withdrawal of the warehousing facility by Central Govt., in terms of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 without payment of duty. It is his contention that one month s time was permitted by the Board for payment of duty on such goods irrespectiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e availed of the benefit of this Notification while clearing their petroleum products to EOU. This facility cannot be denied to them simply because a warehousing facility was provided and subsequently lifted. It is this view which was taken by the coordinate Bench in Final Order No. 1262-1264/06 ibid. In that case, certain petroleum products were in the appellant s warehouse in the midnight of 5/6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
