9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per: T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)].- Revenue has filed these appeals against the following Orders-in-Appeals passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Visakhapatnam. (i) OIA No. 4/2006 (V-II) Cus. dated 17-1-2006 (ii) OIA No. 5/2006 (V-II) Cus. dated 17-1-2006 (iii) OIA Nos. 6 7/2006 (V-II) Cus. dated 17-1-2006 2. Shri G. L. Rawal, learned Sr. Advocate and Shri Rajesh Rawal, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Shri K. Sambi Reddi, learned JDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue. 3. We heard both sides. The issue in these appeals relates to the question of assessment of bulk liquid cargo. The Respondents imported bulk liquid cargo which is crude oil. In first two cases re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Revenue, the Respondent in the first two appeals discharged the duty liability on the basis of shore tank quantity. It is contention of the Revenue that prior to Board's instruction dated 24-6-2003, duty was discharged only on the basis of the ship ullage quantity. Therefore, before the introduction of the new procedure, quantification of cargo as per ship ullage report by the lower authority is proper and legal. The other contention taken by the Revenue is that the Apex Court in the case of M/s. H. M. Bags Manufacturer v. CCE -1997 (94) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) has observed that the circular/order passed under Section 37B of the Central Excise Act, 1994 is effective from the date of its Notification or Publication. 4.1 With regard t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) E.L.T. 110 (ii) CC, Visakhapatnam v. Asia Pacific - By Final Order No. 370/2007 (iii) CC, Mumbai v. HPCL - 2000 (121) E.L.T. 109 (iv) National Organic Chemical v. CC, Mumbai - 2000 (126) E.L.T. 1072 (v) CC, Visakhapatnam v. HPCL - 2001 (130) E..L.T. 139 (vi) CC, Mumbai v. National Organic Chemical - 2002 (142) E.L.T. A-280 (vii) MRPL v. CCE, Bangalore - 2002 (141) E.L.T. 247 (Tri.) (viii) Agarwal Industries v. CC, Hyderabad - 2003 (154) E.L.T. 386 (Tri.) (ix) BPCL v. CC, Mumbai - 2003 (158) E.L.T. 221 5.1 Further, with regard to the granting of refund, the learned Advocate relied on the following case laws: (i) Karnataka Power v. CC, Chennai - 2002 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the conclusion that even before the assessments were finalized and when they were provisional, the respondent contended that duty should be paid only on the basis of the shore tank quantity in terms of the various decisions and board's instruction and therefore, they filed refund claim. But, the refund papers filed by the respondents were returned by the department. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent did not challenge the assessment. In fact no action was taken on the refund claim and assessment was finalized based on the ship ullage. In view of this, the Revenue's grounds of appeal do not have any merit. The Commissioner (A) has relied on various judicial decisions and also Board's circular which was based on the Apex Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
