TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules on duty demand dispute, directs appellant to predeposit Rs. 10 lakhs.</h1> The Tribunal found the case contentious, especially regarding the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 46.67 lakhs. The appellant agreed to pay Rs. 4.8 lakhs ... Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Valuation Issues:1. Demand of duty on Motor Spirit (MS) and High Speed Diesel oil (HSD oil) sold by the appellant.2. Inclusion of delivery charges in the assessable value of goods sold to dealers.3. Dispute regarding the demand of duty on petroleum products sold at the company-owned retail outlet (COCO bunk).4. Time-bar plea against the demand of duty raised in the first show-cause notice.5. Concession of liability and willingness to pay a certain amount by the appellant.6. Interpretation of Board's circular and supplementary instruction in relation to the demand of duty.7. Assessment of duty based on transaction value after the abolition of administered pricing mechanism.8. Lack of specific legal provision supporting the appellant's case.9. Consideration of time-bar plea in relation to the demand of duty on petroleum products sold at the COCO bunk.10. Direction for the appellant to predeposit a certain amount.Analysis:1. The Commissioner demanded duty amounting to over Rs. 1.3 crores from the appellant for the sale of MS and HSD oil. The demand included a penalty of over Rs. 1 crore. The dispute primarily revolved around the inclusion of delivery charges in the assessable value of goods sold to dealers and products transferred to the company's own retail outlet, the COCO bunk.2. The appellant contested the demand of duty on petroleum products sold at the COCO bunk, arguing that the duty should be based on the retail sale margin rather than the actual sale price. The appellant relied on the Board's circular and supplementary instruction to support their contention.3. The Revenue opposed the appellant's claim, asserting that the duty should be assessed based on the actual sale price at the COCO bunk. The Revenue contended that the appellant should not receive special treatment different from other manufacturers.4. The appellant raised a time-bar plea against the demand of duty in the first show-cause notice, arguing that the department was aware of all transactions and nothing was suppressed. The appellant claimed that a significant portion of the demand was time-barred.5. After careful consideration, the Tribunal found the case contentious, especially regarding the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 46.67 lakhs. The appellant agreed to pay Rs. 4.8 lakhs of the total demand. The Tribunal noted the appellant's reliance on the Board's circular but found no specific legal provision supporting their argument.6. The Tribunal directed the appellant to predeposit Rs. 10 lakhs within a specified time frame. Compliance would result in a waiver of predeposit and a stay of recovery for the penalty amount and the remaining duty. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of privilege for the appellant in the sale of goods from the COCO bunk after the abolition of the administered pricing mechanism.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
