9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 529X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K. Prasad, JCDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we find that the learned Commissioner has demanded a differential duty of over Rs. 119.00 crores from the appellants for the period April 2002 to September 2004 and has also imposed on them equal amount of penalty. The impugned demand of duty is on petroleum pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompanies situate in and around the place of the refinery represented the transaction value in terms of a comprehensive agreement executed between all the companies at the behest of the government. This value was based on what is called import parity price (IPP) referred to in the said agreement. After considering the submissions of both sides, we find that, in the case of other oil companies lik ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his manner, the appellants have made out prima facie case against the impugned demand. Accordingly, we grant waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the duty and penalty amounts. 2. As rightly pointed out by both sides, this appeal involving high stakes should be disposed of as early as possible. Accordingly, we direct that the appeal be posted to 4-2-2009 for final hearing. ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
