9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Government observed that M/s. HPCL was not maintaining proper accounts of such losses properly, which shows that there was a negligence on the part of the respondents. Further they also failed to make any justifiable case based on specific reasons for condonation of losses in excess to the specifically prescribed limit. Hence, the losses exceeding prescribed limits cannot be condoned in normal course. The same view has already been taken by the Government in the revision order No. 976/06, dated 24-11-2006 and 496/2011-CX., dated 19-5-2011 in the applicants’ own case- Commissioner (A) erred in condoning losses upto 1% in the absence of any special circumstances for the same. - Decided In favor of the Revenue. Penalty under Rule 25 of Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned period in the show cause notice were to the barest minimum and relied on the Board s Circular No. 261/6/28/80-CX8, dated 19-10-1981 and also state that the quantity worked out in the show cause notice did not take into account the condonable loss limit as allowable as per the existing guidelines for the petroleum products which has been recognized by the C.B.E. C. and as the losses were far below the maximum condonable limit, they requested that further proceedings may be dropped. They also stated that they had been submitting an application with the department for condonation of losses which has been stated in contrast in the notice. They also submitted that the show cause notice had not allowed for condonation in respect of Na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mit for LSHS, the adjudicating authority held that the respondents claim for the condonation @ 0.5% was not correct. It was further recorded that the respondent has submitted copies of application for condonation which were acknowledged by the Range officers and that after going through the applications it was found that the reasons advanced for condonation were not convincing for losses more than permissible limits. Thus it was held that the respondent was liable for the demand and also interest in terms of the revision order in Order No. 976/2006, dated 24-11-2006 in their own case. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order-in-original respondents filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside the impugned order-in-original and all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat all the losses in the petroleum sector were to be condoned then Board could have simply stated in the above circulars that all commodities pertaining to the petroleum sector would be eligible for condonation of losses. Instead the said circular clearly prescribe the percentages of losses that would be available commodity wise respectively. Moreover, the percentage of losses allowed also differ from commodity to commodity, which clearly goes to prove that all the commodities are distinguished from one another. 4.3 In the instant case, the assessees have sought condonation for Naphtha, LSHS, ATF and JBO. In the case of Naphtha, ATF and JBO, the condonation claimed is within the permissible limits specified by the Board s Circulars. Howe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -II, dated 2-3-1959 as explained in para 69 of Petroleum Manual and confirmed the demand for the quantity exceeding the condonable limit. Commissioner (Appeals) observed that this very issue is settled at the stage of Commissioner (Appeals) and several orders have been passed on identical issues granting relief to the assessee extended the benefit of condonable limit of 1% losses. The applicant department have agitated upon the observation of Commissioner (Appeals) that the respondent is eligible for the condonation of the losses in respect of Naphtha Bitumen ATF JBO and LSHS as they were allowed by the adjudicating authority in an earlier case. They have placed reliance on the Board Letter dated 1-6-1956 and 2-3-1959 according to which los ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t M/s. HPCL was not maintaining proper accounts of such losses properly, which shows that there was a negligence on the part of the respondents. Further they also failed to make any justifiable case based on specific reasons for condonation of losses in excess to the specifically prescribed limit. Hence, the losses exceeding prescribed limits cannot be condoned in normal course. The same view has already been taken by the Government in the revision order No. 976/06, dated 24-11-2006 and 496/2011-CX., dated 19-5-2011 in the applicants own case. 9. In view of the above position, Government feels that Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in condoning losses upto 1% in the absence of any special circumstances for the same. As such, Government se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
