Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the blending of liquefied petroleum gases occurred in the appellants' storage tanks so as to amount to manufacture attracting central excise duty, interest and penalties.
Analysis: The evidence showed that the import orders, voyage documents, survey reports, time logs, tank ullage reports and shipping records consistently described the cargo as LPG mix and showed mixing at the vessel's manifold or during voyage. The technical material also supported the appellants' case that mixing could not safely occur in refrigerated storage tanks because of the pressure and temperature characteristics of the gases. The statements relied upon by the Department were found to be inconsistent with the documentary record and insufficient to displace it.
Conclusion: The alleged manufacture in the storage tanks was not proved, and the duty demand and penalties could not be sustained.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeals were allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: When the contemporaneous documentary and technical evidence establishes that blending occurred on board the vessel or at the ship's manifold and not in the assessee's premises, a finding of manufacture within the factory cannot be sustained on the basis of inconsistent statements alone.