9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hrough this system in excess of the quota approved by the Central Government/State Government, would not be eligible for the benefit of impugned Notifications. We also notice that Section 3A of the Control Order, 1993 puts restriction on sale and use of kerosene imported under parallel marketing system. The Appellant has not produced any evidence in their support that the supply in excess of quota fixed under PDS, was sold by the dealers only to the ultimate beneficiary of the public distribution system. benefit of exemption Notifications is not available to the Appellant in this case - Decided against assessee. - APPEAL NO.C/A/83/2006 & CO.47/2006 - ORDER NO.FO/A/75183/2014 - Dated:- 8-5-2014 - DR. D.M.MISRA AND DR. I.P.LAL, JJ. FO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d with the instant Appeal against the impugned Order of the Commissioner before this Tribunal. The Committee of Secretaries, after considering the matter, directed the Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata to adjudicate the revised duty liability, if any. The Commissioner, vide his Report dated 04.09.2009, re-quantified the purported duty demand to the extent of Rs.3,21,67,445/-. The detailed break-up of duty relating to the SKO not used for the specified purposes is as follows:- Amount of Duty (i) Supplies to Railways :Rs.99,76,425/- (ii) Supplies to Airforce/Defence :Rs.2,05,11,837/- (iii) Supplies to PDS dealers beyond quota :Rs.16,79,183/- 3. Ld. Senior Advocate appearing for the Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Public Distribution System stated above, that there is no limit or restriction placed therein, of any sale of distribution or marketing of kerosene through a dealer at declared price and through a distribution system, inter alia, approved by the State Government, as in the present case. He submitted that in this case, there is no suppression on the part of the Appellant and therefore, the penalty is not imposable on them. He relied upon the Hon ble Apex Court s judgment in case of Sarabhai M. Chemicals vs. CCE, 2005(179)ELT 3(SC). He further submitted that the benefit of exemption Notification should be construed liberally. In support, he cited the judgment of the Apex Court in case of CC (Prev.) vs. Malwa Industries Ltd., 2009(235)ELT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notification Nos.23/98-Cus. dated 22.06.98, 20/99-Cus. dated 28.02.99 and 16/2000-Cus. dated 01.03.2000. Notification No.20/99-Cus. dated 28.02.99 exempt the goods namely, kerosene, from the duty of Customs leviable under the First Schedule and the Additional Duty under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, subject to the conditions that they are imported by the Indian Oil Companies for ultimate sale to Public Distribution System. Admittedly, supplies to Railways and Defence do not fall under this category and therefore, the benefit of exemption Notifications (supra) is not available to the imported goods.specified in the Annexure to the said Notification. 6. He submitted that the impugned Notifications do not pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riction on sale and use of kerosene imported under parallel marketing system. The Appellant has not produced any evidence in their support that the supply in excess of quota fixed under PDS, was sold by the dealers only to the ultimate beneficiary of the public distribution system. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, we are of the opinion that benefit of exemption Notifications is not available to the Appellant in this case. The ld. Advocate has submitted that they were regularly filing the returns to the Department. So there was no suppression on the part of the Appellant. In support, he has relied on the judgment of the Hon ble High Court in case of Sarabhai M. Chemicals (supra). He has further submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
