9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (7) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OCL that NGL was cleared at the rate of Rs. 6483.26 (from August' 94 to December' 95) and Rs. 7534.90 (from January' 96 to May' 96 and August' 96 to March' 97) which according to the Department was the normal price at which the goods were normally sold in the course of wholesale trade to the wholesale buyer. It was further alleged that the HPCL did not inform the department about the rates at which M/s. IOCL was supplying NGL to other buyers hence the Appellants had deliberately suppressed this fact with intention to evade payment of duty. The extended period of limitation under Section 11A was invoked and penalty equal to duty demanded under Section 11AC, penalty under Rule 173Q (1) and also interest under Section 11AB (1). It was also all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12 and RG 23 submitted to the Department periodically. Hence, there was no suppression of facts or mis-declaration with an intention to evade payment of duty and the demand was barred by limitation. 3. The Commissioner found that - (i) The resort to proviso to Section 11A was permissible, since the Appellants had not disclosed the price at which IOCL sold NGL in the course of wholesale trade. (ii) RT 12 filed by the Appellants were assessed provisionally under Rule 9B and the demand was not hit by limitation. (iii) The Appellants have to discharge the duty liability on removal from the warehouse and therefore the price has to be determined at the place of removal for payment of duty. (iv) Since NGL is not a finished product manufactu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... since removals here are ex-warehouse. In the facts of this case duty is required to be determined by end use after clearance. If the end use is for spiking the crude as in a refinery, then the valuation has to be Rs. 1800/- or if it is not used for that purpose, then the valuation has to be Rs. 6000/- or Rs. 7000/- as the case may be. The plea that the reassessment of warehouse goods is not permissible in this case is rejected. (c) We find that as regards the payment of duty from RG 23A part II and RG 23C part II, amounts were deposited on ex-bond clearance from a warehouse. Since these goods were not manufactured by the appellants, the payment of duty from RG 23A part II and RG 23C part II, cannot be accepted as due discharge of duty. Pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
