9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 667X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave not been correctly measured. There is no evidence of any removal of the product, in the said case demand of duty against the appellant can t be upheld. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No.70090 of 2019 - FINAL ORDER NO.71928/2019 - Dated:- 29-11-2019 - HON BLE MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Vinayak Kohli, Advocate for A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, i.e. floating roof correction factor, not being incorporated till June 2012. It was further submitted that in the absence of any evidence of clandestine removal, the demand was unsustainable. 3. By an order dated November 30, 2014, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed the demand along with equal penalty on the ground that no remission application had been filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s these losses are within the condonable limit, no demand can be raised thereon. The demand has been set aside in similar circumstances in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. CC, Vadodara reported in 2010 (258) ELT 271(T). b) In so far, as the demand for June 2012 is concerned, it is submitted this arises due to the correction of the floating roof factor in the records. As t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd in such circumstances is wholly unjustified. In this context, reliance is placed on the decision in the case of CC CE, Hyderabad Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. reported in 2016 (344) ELT 657 (T-Hyd.) and in the matter of I.O.C.L. Vs. CCE, Calcutta-II reported in 2003 (158) ELT 49 (T- Kolkata). d) The appellants request that the impugned order be set aside with consequent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
