9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (5) TMI 259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the order of the Appellate Collector the appellant filed a revision petition before the Government of India. By reasons of provisions of Section 35P the revision stood statutorily transferred to this Tribunal. Hence this appeal. 3. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are either admitted or over which there is no controversy. According to the appellants, during the period from December 1977 to October, 1978 several consignments of Jute Batching Oil were removed under bond without payment of duty of Central Excise ex-Haldia Refinery to the different marketing installations of M/s. B.P.C.L. and M/s. H.P.C.L., Budge Budge by some fixed barges. The goods were duly re-warehoused. Both the despatched quantity and the re-wareh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... late Collector. He clubbed both the appeals and passed a common order. Though the appellants were required to file two revision petitions before the Government of India they filed a single revision petition which stood transferred to this Tribunal. During the hearing we pointed out that it is necessary for the appellants to file two revision petitions and we gave an opportunity to file on more revision petitions. Shri Basu, however, submitted that he is not pressing the revision petition filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 462/79 and he will confine only to the appeal No. 463 where the amount involved is ₹ 35,970.92p. He also made it clear that he is not disputing the rate of duty and even in his revision application he did not chal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed on annual basis as in the case of pipeline movement and that they have been informed that the matter had been referred to by the Collector to New Delhi for final decision. He, therefore, prayed that the order passed by the Appellate Collector be set aside and the duty levied may be remitted. 8. For the department, Shri A.K. Saha contended that according to the bond executed by the appellants, they are required to discharge the same quantity as entered in AR3A and if there is loss other than transit loss for which condonation is permissible according to the Government s instructions, the appellants are liable to pay duty on the quantum of loss. The appellants are not entitled to claim condonation for the loss because of the mechanical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order of the Appellate Collector. The Appellate Collector disposed of the appeal on the sole ground that the loss is not a transit loss and if the loss is due to mechanical defects, the appellants are not entitled for condonation. It is not doubt true that neither the Act nor the Rules made thereunder provides for condonation of loss of this nature. But then the golden thread which runs through the entire Act and the Rules is that no commodity shall be subject to duty twice. Just because there is no specific provision to condone the cases of this type the authorities are not to act mechanically. There is no point in insisting upon a pound of flesh, when the Collector has accepted the representation as to the procedure of reconciliation a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
