9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 575X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant : Ms Padmavati Patil, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri Ahibaran, Additional Commissioner (AR.) PER : Ashok Jindal The issue involved is in common in all the appeals therefore the same are disposed by a common order. 2. The appellants are manufacturer of Petroleum Products and clearing the Petroleum Product on payment of appropriate duty from refineries to various depots. Central Excise duty was paid on the assessable value prevailing at the time of clearance from the refineries. Due to change in the budget sometimes the price of petroleum products were increased and in some the same was decreased. The appellants were clearing the petroleum products from their depots at the price fixed by the Ministry of Petroleum an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rought on record by the Revenue to show that what was collected as prices by the appellants from their buyers represented the amount of Central Excise duty. It has only been presumed without any evidence that the prices were increased on account of increase in the rate of duty in the budget presented for the financial year 1999-2000. The ld. Advocate has also relied upon the Board's Circular No. 599/36/2001-CX, dated 12-11-2001 wherein, it is mentioned that recovery of any amount representing as excise duty is a matter of fact to be accepted on the basis of documents. No such document has been brought on record in the present matter. Further it is well known fact that the prices of petroleum products are fixed by the Oil Coordination Commit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m Corporation Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut 2002 (140) ELT 646 (T) has correctly held that no demand could be raised against the appellant under Section 11D, as it was not the manufacturer of the concerned goods. This issue was thereafter discussed in Board meeting held on 23.07.08. In view of Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision dated 26.07.2004, in the case of M/s. BPCL, the Board decided that for past cases action as per AG's advice and the Hon'ble Supreme Court orders is required to be taken. The Board, However, concurred with the view of the Central Excise Policy wing that by virtue of amendment in Seciton11D vide Finance Act, 2008 the differential duty, if any collected by a person' would be recoverable under Seciton11D subject to the condition t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
