9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T, MUMBAI)relying on CCE vs Mazagon Docks Ltd [2005 (7) TMI 105 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] referred the matter to the Larger Bench. Thus as the issue is before the Larger Bench, the applicant is entitled for stay. The applicants were clearing the goods on payment of duty and the same were reflected in their monthly returns and the invoices which had been specifically mentioned the duty. Therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty. 4. The contention of the applicant is that on the same issue the Tribunal in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs CCE reported in 2010 (262) ELT 1078 (Tri-Mum) referred the matter to the Larger Bench. The contention is that as the issue is before the Larger Bench, the applicant is entitled for stay. On merits, the contention is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upreme Court in the case of CCE, Bangalore vs Mazagon Dock Ltd reported in 2005 (187) ELT 3 (SC) to submit that as the applicants are not receiving any subsidy therefore their customers i.e. other oil marketing companies receiving subsidy and the applicants receiving the full transaction value. Therefore, they are liable to pay duty on the transaction value. Hence the demand is rightly made. 7. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
