2009 (8) TMI 592

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0-9-2004:- (i) RPO charges (ii) RPO Surcharge (iii) State Surcharge (iv) Siding and Shunting charges (v) Airfield charges. The proposals in the show cause notices were dropped except for demand relevant to 'siding and shunting charges' relating to clearances made during 1-3-1994 to 2-7-1996 which worked out to Rs. 42,09,950/- in respect of MS and HSD. The impugned order confirmed demand of Rs. 42,09,950/- in terms of Rule 9B(5) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest in accordance with relevant statutory provisions in force. 2. The appeal filed by M/s. IOC Ltd. challenges the impugned order on the ground that the notice basic to the proceedings had not alle....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al Excise indicating the amount of duty due on account of finalization of provisional assessment. This letter of the Assistant Commissioner was remanded by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 20-11-2000 directing the Assistant Commissioner to adjudicate valuation dispute in the light of the order of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. CCE [1999 (108) E.L.T. 402 (Tribunal)]. We find that the impugned order seeks to implement also the remand direction contained in the above Order-in-Appeal. 5. We find that vide impugned order, the Commissioner quantified the duty short paid ascertained on finalization of provisional assessment on account of inclusion of railway siding and shunting charges. For ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... duty at such rate or at such value as declared by the assessee, till the date when the direction of the proper officer is issued and communicated to the assessee": In the decision of the Tribunal in Siddharth Tubes Ltd. case (supra), the Tribunal held as follows in paragraph 6:- "6. The appellant is right in its contention that the assessments in question were provisional and the provisions in the Act and Rules relating to recovery of short-levies and penalties do not apply to provisional assessment. That does not mean that duty demand should be quashed. Instead provisional assessments were required to be finalised in terms of Rule 9B itself and upon finalisation of the amount, differential duty, if any, is required to be paid by the....