2013 (12) TMI 880

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e, more than 23 appeals have been decided and in one of the appeals decided pertaining to the Respondent/Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., having a sales depot Bhitoni, Post Office-Shahpura, District-Jabalpur, this appeal has been filed by the revenue. 3. It is said that the respondent is a Public Sector Company, engaged in manufacturing and marketing of petroleum product. It is case of the revenue in this appeal that the respondent is registered with the department as a dealer and receives duty paid indigenous furnace oil from it's refineries, it is further said that during the period from January, 2000 to October, 2000, they have charged and collected extra/ excess amount from its customers in the name of excise duty and as the same has not....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rd to "dealers of petroleum product" the issue stands settled by a judgment rendered by the tribunal in the case of M/s BPCL Vs. CCE, Meerut reported in 2002 (144) EL 673, which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, so also the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case reported in 2011 (272) ELT 654 (SC). However, he submits that as the question decided by the Supreme Court and the tribunal pertains to payment of duty by the dealer and not by the manufacturer and as the respondent/company is manufacturer, the principle laid down in this case will not apply. 6. The contention advanced that the respondent/company is manufacturer of petroleum product, therefore, is liable to pay the difference of duty, as made by Shri Sushrut Dha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uding Furnace Oil, both imported and indigenous, from various resources. It is, therefore, clear from there assertions that the respondent is a dealer and not a manufacturer. Even before the tribunal, when the matter was pending, there was nothing to indicate that the respondent is termed as manufacturer and not a dealer. The tribunal treated the respondent to be dealer and not a manufacturer and, therefore, the question of law already decided in the case of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (Supra) pertaining to a dealer has been applied and the matter has been decided. 8. The respondent admit that in the case of dealer, the question of payment of duty under Section 11 D stands decided by the judgments referred to by the tribunal in....