9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri R.K. Chakraborty, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : M. Veeraiyan, Member (T)]. - This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeal) No. 126/SLG/04/450 dated 30-11-2004. 2. Heard both sides. 3.1 The relevant facts, in brief, are that M/s. Bongaigaon Refineries and Petrochemicals, the refinery belonging to IOC cleared petroleum produ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bonded warehouse paid duty on products coming from the above refinery without availing the benefit of Notification 21 of 2002 as amended. Subsequently, they preferred the refund claim. The refund claim was rejected by the original authority holding that the benefit of exemption Notification 21/2002 was applicable only on clearances from the refinery or from their first warehouse and not for clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tire amount of duty and collected from the dealers, subsequently on issue of debit notes by IOC refinery, the appellants have, passed on the amount due to the refineries as incentives. In other words though "full amount" was indicated in the invoices raised by BPCL, only 50% of the said amount should be treated as duty amount and the rest should be treated as value and no unjust enrichment would b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vance to the factual position that the appellants have collected the full amount as duty without taking into account Notification No. 21/02. The sharing of sale proceeds between the BPCL and the supplier namely the refinery of IOC is an internal matter between the buyer and seller. The fact of passing the entire duty burden by BPCL to their dealers by indicating the said amount in the invoices is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
