1985 (9) TMI 225

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Senthivel, for the Respondent. [Order per : K.S. Dilipsinhji Member (T)].  - M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. have filed the present appeal against the Order of the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I, No. V-6(30)5/84, dated 3.6.85 ordering levy of duty on 6.110 Kls. of kerosene oil which was beyond the quantity of 0.5% loss noticed during the storage of the kerosene in the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... filed on 5-2-1983, while the Collector's order under appeal was communicated to them on 5-6-1985. The appellants accordingly pray for setting aside the Collector's order and for direction that no duty is payable by the appellants on the aforesaid loss. 2. The learned Departmental representative has admitted the fact that there was no issue of the show cause notice to the appellants on beh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....further, Shri Senthivel stated that kerosene was notified under Rule 139 for being permitted storage in a bonded warehouse without payment of duty. The warehousing of goods was subject to the terms and conditions under Rule 140 ibid. The Collector's Order-in-Original related to levy of duty on the excess quantity of loss noticed during storage and therefore it was not a case of penal action under ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se was analogous to the one decided by this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation v. The Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II 1983 E.L.T. 631 wherein the Tribunal had held that the demand under Rule 160 was subject to the time limit prescribed under Rule 10 read with Rule 173J. 4.  We have considered the arguments of the appellants and the respondent. The question ....