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 rules in favor of appellant PSU in CVD dispute over High Speed Diesel, citing Administered Price Mechanism Scheme.</h1> <h3>M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata</h3> M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata - TMI Issues involved: The issue involved in this case is whether Countervailing duty (CVD) should be demanded and recovered from the appellant under the provisions of Section 28B of the Customs Act, 1962, for the alleged excess collection of CVD from customers on duty paid imported goods like High Speed Diesel.Comprehensive Details:Issue 1: Demand of Countervailing duty (CVD) from the appellantThe appellant, a Public Sector Undertaking registered with the Central Excise authorities for storage and sale of petroleum products, received duty paid imported goods, including High Speed Diesel (HSD) through the pipeline from Haldia. The appellant also received bonded excisable goods and duty paid excisable goods for sale. The excess collection of CVD was alleged on indigenous imported HSD at the rate of Rs.1 per litre, leading to the issuance of show-cause notices. The demand was confirmed against the appellant, which was challenged in the appeal.Issue 2: Precedent decisions and applicabilityThe appellant cited precedent decisions by the Tribunal in their own cases, where it was held that excess collection of duty was not sustainable as per the Administered Price Mechanism Scheme. The Tribunal observed that under the APM, any excess recovery had to be deposited in the oil pool account, and any deficiency was made good by the account. The Tribunal also noted that the prices of petroleum products were fixed under the APM, and any excess duty collection was surrendered to the oil pool account. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the demand confirmed against the appellant based on these precedents.Conclusion:The Tribunal, considering the settled issue in the appellant's own cases and the mechanism under the Administered Price Mechanism Scheme, held that the demand of CVD against the appellant was not sustainable. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief, if any.
TaxTMI 