9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 781X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer of the goods, the duty demanded was not held to be valid. Thus, the appeal filed by the respondent-assessee was rightly allowed by the Tribunal. It has been held in a catena of judgments that a registered dealer not being a manufacturer or producer of goods is not liable to pay duty under Section 11D of the Act. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - CEA No. 30 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 1-8-2017 - Ajay Kumar Mittal And Amit Rawal, JJ. Mr. Amit Goyal, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant-revenue Mr. Amrinder Singh, Advocate for the respondent-assessee ORDER Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. The appellant-revenue has filed the instant appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short 'the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the quantity over and above the receipt i.e. quantity of HSD due to the temperature variations and other operations. The duty so collected on excess quantity sold due to temperature variations had not been deposited with the Department. According to the appellant-revenue, the facts regarding the excess sale of HSD over and above quantity receipt of collection of central excise duty were willfully concealed from the Department and were not truly reflected in various statements/returns filed with the Department from time to time. Accordingly, departmental proceedings were initiated against the respondent-assessee and a show cause notice dated 30.12.1999 (Annexure A-1) was issued for demand of Central Excise duty of `38,56,734/-, which was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s rightly allowed by the Tribunal. The relevant findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard reads thus:- 7. It is well settled principle that duty is to be demanded by the manufacturer/procedure of the goods. Admittedly in this case appellant is not the manufacturer of the goods and is only a registered dealer and it is not the allegation that appellant has procured the goods clandestinely without payment of duty. In these circumstances, as held by this tribunal in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (supra) duty cannot be demanded from the appellant as they are not the manufacturer or producer of the goods. Further, it has been held in a catena of judgments that a registered dealer not being a manufacturer or prod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
