9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , JJ. For the Appellant: Mr. G. Shivadass, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. A.K. Nigam, Addl. Commissioner(AR) Order Per: P.G. Chacko These applications seek waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery against the adjudged dues which include duty of Rs.54,62,430/- demanded from the appellant for the period from December 2003 to March 2004 and the connected penalty (both under challenge in the first appeal) and duty of Rs.1,07,29,461/- demanded for the period from April to September 2004 and the connected penalty (both under challenge in the second appeal). After perusing the records and hearing both sides, we find prima facie case for the appellant and, accordingly, dispense with pre-deposit. Further, as the substantive i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harges though these charges were also part of the CBR, the show-cause notices demanded the differential duty and interest thereon besides proposing penalties. These demands and proposals were contested. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demands of duty (with interest) against the assessee and imposed penalties on them. The present appeals are directed against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. 3. The adjudicating authority found from the figures certified by the assessee s Chartered Accountant that the freight actually incurred in the transport of LPG to the dealers premises was far less than the freight claimed by HPCL for abatement as average freight. The adjudicating authority also found that no freight was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce there is no merit in the impugned orders. We set the impugned orders and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief. We further note that a Civil Appeal filed by the Department against the said decision of this Bench was dismissed by the Hon ble Supreme Court vide Commissioner Vs. HPCL [2007(213) ELT A116(SC)]. The learned Additional Commissioner(AR) has fairly conceded that the issue is already covered against the Revenue by the Hon ble Supreme Court s decision. 5. In view of the cited case law, we have to set aside the impugned demands of duty and the connected penalties. It is ordered accordingly. In the result, both appeals stand allowed. The stay applications also stand disposed of. (Operative part of this order pronou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
