Double recovery of duty on the same furnace oil transaction not permitted where liability was already confirmed against the recipient.

Duty on furnace oil cleared under exemption could not be confirmed again against the supplier where the same duty on the same quantity had already been confirmed against the 100% EOU recipient and upheld in proceedings. The department's reliance on non-production of the re-warehousing certificate within the prescribed period did not justify double recovery for the same transaction. The demand against the appellant was therefore unsustainable and was decided in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether duty could be confirmed again against the appellant for the same quantity of furnace oil on the same charge when the demand on that very quantity had already been confirmed against the recipient and upheld in appeal.

Analysis: The appellant cleared furnace oil under exemption and the department sought duty on the ground that the re-warehousing certificate was not produced within the prescribed period. However, the same duty demand on the same quantity had already been raised against the 100% EOU recipient, confirmed in adjudication, and upheld in further proceedings. In these circumstances, the same duty liability could not be recovered twice from different persons in respect of the same quantity and the same transaction.

Conclusion: The demand confirmed against the appellant could not be sustained and the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

---