9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1046X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amounts, representing duty of excise has not been discharged by the Revenue inasmuch as no iota of evidence was produced for sustaining such claim. Thus, in absence of any credible evidence adduced by the Department, the charges levelled in this case against the appellant for recovery of Central Excise Duty on the ground of mere presumption cannot be sustained. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/163/2011-EX[DB] - Final Order No. 56389/2016 - Dated:- 24-2-2016 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) and Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Present for the Appellant : Mr. B.L.Narasimhan, Advocate, Present for the Respondent: Mr. S. Nanthuk, JCDR ORDER Brief facts of the case are that the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The Id. Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the sales price prevalent on the day of sale has been charged in the sales invoices issued to the airline customers and actual amount of duty paid on the pre-revised price, while purchasing the goods from the refinery, have only been claimed from those customers. Thus, he submits that since the appellant had not collected any amount over and above the Central Excise duty paid on initial procurement of ATF, the demand confirmed in the impugned order is not sustainable. 3. On the other hand, the Id. A.R. appearing for the Revenue reiterated the finding recorded in the impugned order and further submitted that since t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Invoice No Date Total amount of duty paid Duty per KL Invoice No Date Total amount of duty paid Duty of per KL 1. 1139900756 19-08-2006 45287.21 2264.36 4111024994 30-08-2006 19813.16 2264.36 2. 1139901001 18-09-2006 45983.35 2299.17 4111025603 21-09-2006 18347.36 2299.17 3. 1139901945 26-12-2006 38262.54 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
