2015 (1) TMI 24

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein duty has been demanded on account of less receipt of goods than mentioned in the invoices. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of petroleum products. They were receiving the Lube Base Oil through pipeline. During the course of transportation of the goods, they have .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , they are entitled for input credit as per the quantity shown in the invoices. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR opposes the contention of the learned Counsel and submits that the Hon'ble High Court in the appellant's own case (supra) also held that transportation of Naphtha is highly volatile in nature, in that case transit loss can occur. But in this case, Lube Base Oil is not a volati .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n this case the transit loss is varying between 0.01 and 0.72% which is admissible in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, I hold that there may be variation in the transportation of the quantity of the goods accordingly, transit loss is allowable. Hence, I hold that the appellant is entitled for input credit as shown in the invoices. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X