9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1435X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty liability i.e. 06.09.2004, on price prevailing on that day - Held that: - identical issue decided in respondent own case HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. Versus CCE., VISAKHAPATNAM [2010 (4) TMI 951 - CESTAT BANGALORE], where it was held that If the Revenue authorities of all over India are accepting the fact that the transaction value of the petroleum goods consequent to withdrawal of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /6.09.2004, the Central Government of India withdraw warehousing facility to all refineries, stocks lying in the said warehousing terminal on Secunderabad of the respondent Ghatkesar become liable to pay duty. Show cause notice was issued to appellant for differential duty liability. Appellant contested the show cause notice on the ground that the entire stock at the warehousing terminal at Ghatke ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g on that day. It is the submission that this is the intention of the Board Circular which is not well followed in the case in hand by the Adjudicating Authority. It is the submission that the claim of discharge of duty liability in the subsequent month under Rule 8 is correct but the duty is paid for the clearances made, but not for the stock lying on that day i.e. 06.09.2004. 4. Learned Couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he above reproduced Circular that the duty liability on the goods in the warehouses after the withdrawal of warehousing facility could be discharged in terms of provisions of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could indicate that duty liability can be paid by the appellant on 5 th of the following month. Such determination of the duty can arise only when the goods are cleared from the wareh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods consequent to withdrawal of the warehousing facility has to be on the transaction value on the date of clearance, we do not find any reason for non-application of the said procedure in this case. 6. In view of the foregoing, we find no reason to deviate from the view already taken by the Tribunal on an identical issue in respect of the same respondent. 7. The impugned order is upheld a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
