Appeal allowed, case remanded for document submission & compliance verification. Buyer's usage proof emphasized.

The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded back to the adjudicating authority. The appellant, a petroleum products manufacturer, was directed to submit required documents within two months for verification by excise authorities. The responsibility to prove intended usage was placed on the buyer for supplies to certain units, while evidence of compliance was required for the appellant's own depots. The Tribunal emphasized procedural compliance and the allocation of responsibility between the supplier and buyer in establishing end-use criteria for concessional duty rates.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Original confirming duty demand for violating Notification No. 28/2002-C.E.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a manufacturer of petroleum products, supplied motor spirit for blending with ethanol under concessional duty rates. The duty demand was raised due to alleged non-compliance with end-use criteria, resulting in a short payment of duty.

2. The appellant contended that they had submitted invoices, applications for removal, and buyer statements to prove compliance with the end-use condition. The appellant argued that the demands were unsustainable as the submitted documents were not considered by the department.

3. The Tribunal noted that under the Central Excise Rules, the responsibility to prove intended usage lies with the buyer, not the supplier. For supplies to IOCL and HPCL, the duty liability rests with the recipient units, not the appellant. However, for the appellant's own depots, evidence of usage and compliance with BIS standards must be provided.

4. The Tribunal directed the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh consideration. The appellant was given two months to submit the required documents, including simple accounts and Annexure-II returns, for verification by the excise authorities. The authority was instructed to pass a speaking order after reevaluation.

5. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the need for the appellant to furnish the necessary details for a reassessment of the differential duty liability. The Tribunal's decision focused on procedural compliance and the allocation of responsibility between the supplier and the buyer in establishing end-use criteria for concessional duty rates.

---