Tribunal rules on Central Excise Duty appeal, manufacturers liable for duty, dealers exempt.

The appellant's appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act was dismissed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal ruled that Central Excise Duty can only be demanded from manufacturers, not dealers like the respondent storing non-duty paid goods in a bonded warehouse. The duty on shortages and excess goods should be claimed from manufacturers, not non-producing dealers. The Tribunal's decision was based on established legal principles and supported by relevant case law, leading to the dismissal of the appeal for lack of any substantial question of law.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether Central Excise Duty can be demanded from a non-manufacturer or producer of goodsRs.
2. Whether a Bonded Warehouse receiving non-duty paid goods is liable to discharge duty liability and be treated as a dealerRs.
3. Whether the responsibility for payment of Central Excise Duty applies when goods are cleared from the factory to a warehouse or from warehouse to another warehouseRs.

Analysis:
1. The appellant-revenue filed an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act against a Tribunal order. The respondent, engaged in storing non-duty paid petroleum products, cleared them from a bonded warehouse after charging duty. The appellant claimed duty on excess quantity sold due to temperature variations, not deposited with the Department. The Tribunal set aside the demand, stating duty can only be demanded from manufacturers, not dealers. The Tribunal's decision was based on precedents like Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., stating registered dealers not producing goods are not liable to pay duty under the Act.

2. The Tribunal found the respondent not being a manufacturer or producer of goods, duty cannot be demanded from them. The duty on shortages and excess goods should be demanded from manufacturers. The Tribunal cited judgments like Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. to support its decision. The appellant failed to show any legal flaw in the Tribunal's findings or challenge the relevance of the cited judgments, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

3. The Tribunal emphasized the principle that duty is to be demanded from manufacturers or producers of goods. Since the respondent was a registered dealer and not alleged to have procured goods clandestinely without duty payment, the duty demand was deemed invalid. The Tribunal's decision was consistent with established legal principles and supported by relevant case law, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal due to the absence of any substantial question of law.

---