TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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 remands case, upholds claim with conditions. Commissioner lacks remand power. Addressed liability for cess.</h1> <h3>COMMR. OF CUS. & C. EX., VISAKHAPATNAM Versus CAIRN ENERGY INDIA PVT. LTD.</h3> COMMR. OF CUS. & C. EX., VISAKHAPATNAM Versus CAIRN ENERGY INDIA PVT. LTD. - 2013 (287) E.L.T. 315 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues:- Appeal against common order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) in three appeals filed by respondent against three adverse Orders-in-Original demanding differential amounts of cess on crude oil.- Dispute over liability to pay cess on quantity of crude oil acknowledged by refinery in Intake certificates.- Department's reliance on Tribunal's decision in ONGC case and Board's Circular for cess payment on excess quantities received.- Commissioner (Appeals) remanding the matters due to inconsistency in Department's stand.- Department's contention of Commissioner (Appeals) lacking power of remand.- Respondent's claim for refund of cess on shortages and plea for adjustment against demanded cess.- Tribunal's analysis of respondent's liability under Section 15 of Oil Industry (Development) Act, 1974.- Tribunal's consideration of remand power of Commissioner (Appeals) and respondent's claim for adjustment.- Decision to set aside impugned order and remand case to original authorities for fresh assessment.Detailed Analysis:1. The appeals were filed against a common order by Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the demand for differential cess on crude oil. The dispute centered around the liability to pay cess based on quantities acknowledged in Intake certificates by the refinery, not Bill of Lading quantities. The original authorities confirmed demands against the respondent, leading to appeals and remand by Commissioner (Appeals) due to inconsistency in the Department's stand.2. The Department relied on the Tribunal's decision in the ONGC case and a Board's Circular for cess payment on excess quantities received by the refinery. The Department argued that the respondent is liable to pay cess under Section 15(2) of the Oil Industry (Development) Act, 1974, on quantities reflected in the Refinery's Intake certificates.3. The Tribunal considered the Department's arguments and the respondent's claim for adjustment. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the case, prompting the Department to challenge the remand power of the Commissioner (Appeals). The respondent sought a refund of cess on shortages and requested adjustment against the demanded cess.4. The Tribunal analyzed the respondent's liability under Section 15 of the Act, emphasizing that cess is payable on quantities received in the refinery. The Tribunal upheld the original authorities' view on the substantive issue. However, the Tribunal addressed two key questions: the remand power of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the respondent's claim for adjustment.5. Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment, the Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked the power of remand. The respondent's claim for adjustment was found valid, subject to conditions to prevent unjust enrichment. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the original authorities for fresh assessment, ensuring the respondent's right to be heard.This detailed analysis covers the legal judgment comprehensively, addressing the issues involved and the Tribunal's decision on each point with relevant legal references and arguments presented by both parties.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
