9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 720X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the impugned goods and to submit the prescribed proof of their receipt/re-warehousing despite several opportunities given to them in remand proceedings from time to time. - Revision application rejected - demand confirmed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sit of duty has already been made. Hence, Government is of the opinion that factual position is to be ascertained by the lower authority by making reference to the jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities". 2.6. The Additional Commissioner, Mumbai-Il vide Order-in-Original No. SP/19/ADC/M-II/2010 dated 10.01.2011 decided the issue on limited mandate of analysing in respect of only those cases where submission of re-warehousing certificate is the issue and confirmed the duty of ₹ 1,41,94,512 involved under Rule 156 B (2) read with Rule 173 N of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 and for recovery of interest thereof. 3. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original the applicant filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide Order-in-Appeal No BC/331/M-II/2011-12 dated 27.02.2012 who rejected the same. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the applicant has filed this revision application under Section 35 EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds: 4.1. That with regard to demand at serial no. 1 and 11, the applicant submit that the cargo loaded was taken back at the applicants refinery tanks. That the tanker Basave ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deliveries by pipelines, which is including the product received. That the circular also does not restrict it only to the quantity produced but is covering the aspect of loss in the activities. That it is not disputed that this quantity was stored and handled in the refinery during the month and such a case the applicants submit that the benefit of condonation needs to be given. That the quantity of condonation to be worked out including the quantity received from outside in which case the chargeable loss would be only ₹ 72,579/- and the same be held as payable. 4.5. That as regards serial nos.2,5,6 & 12 applicant do not wish to contest the claim and the duty liability against the above serial numbers is ₹ 8,71,477/-. That for serial no. 8 as against a duty demand of ₹ 3,04,987/- after re-computation, the loss is only ₹ 72,579/- which should be added to the above amount of ₹ 8,71,477/thereby resulting a duty demand of ₹ 9,44,056 /- 4.6. That the duty as confirmed by the first Order-in-Original has been paid as pre deposit and hence the question of interest does not this case. That the Order-in-Original did not impose any interest on the duty d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spute, that in Show Cause Notices at SI. No. 3,4,7 and 9 re-warehousing certificates were submitted by the applicant, in Show Cause Notice at Sl. No. 2,5,6 and 8 condonable loss has been allowed and duty calculated accordingly, in Show Cause Notice at Sl. No. 12 the duty charged on transfer loss in excess of condonable limit has not disputed by the applicant. Thus only show cause notice at Sl. No. 11 is in dispute: Thus the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand to the extent of ₹ 1,39,59,176/- after allowing condonable losses and also imposed penalty of Commissioner(Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No. PKA/90/M-II/2003 dated 29.08.2003 upheld the Order-in-Original as far as the duty demand is confirmed but set aside the penalty imposed. The applicant filed appeal before the Revisionary Authority who vide order no. 358/04 dated 29.10.2004 partially confirmed the order passed by the adjudicating authority in respect of show cause notice issued in sl. no. 1 and 10 as correct and in other cases remanded back to the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities for the limited purpose of re-examining the re-warehousing certificates only. The Additional Commissioner, Mumbai-Il vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uperintendent to dispatch location Superintendent and being an internal n7atter of Excise, and also they do not have the copies of such re-warehoused AR 3A with them. Further, they have stated that the department should re/y on the AR3A which the Superintendent of Central Excise of Mumbai Refinery' has acknowledged that the product had moved out of Mumbai Refinery' 1 am not agreeing with the assessee's said contention, as per provisions of erstwhile Rule 156B, if consignor fails to present the triplicate acknowledged copies of AR 3A 's application to the officer in charge of the warehouse of removal in the manner laid down in the said Rule and a/so duplicate copy of AR 3A's application endorsed with the said Rule and a/so duplicate copy of AR3AS application endorsed with the re-warehousing certificate has a/so not been received by such Range Officer from the officer-in-charge of the re-warehouse of destination in such case the consignor has not submitted the sufficient proof of re-warehousing of the said goods sent from their refinery and hence they are also liable to pay duty on such goods where even though the said goods had been sent to other warehouses but n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
