2011 (9) TMI 866

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appellant despatches the product to the COCO R/Os as stock transfer and on receipt of the product the officer in charge of the COCO R/O sells the product to the Job Contractor by issuing a challan mentioning therein the transaction value, duty element and other charges such as COCO charges and delivery charges on the ground that appellant should have paid duty on COCO charges and delivery charges. Show Cause Notice was issued on 9-6-2004 for the period from April, 2001 to July, 2003 which culminated in the impugned order resulting in confirm of duty demand of Rs. 11,36,942.00 with interest and penalty equal to the duty amount. 2. The demand for duty and interest thereon is not in dispute since the appellant was permitted to challeng....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....9 (238) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) to submit that in the absence of any allegation of suppression of facts the penalty is not imposable. He submits that Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a view that extended period and penalty are co-terminus with each other. In this case the duty demand and interest are not being challenged only because the COD has not permitted them to do so. In the observation of COD while giving permission to the appellant shows that there was a prima facie consideration that no penalty is imposable. 4. We have considered the submissions made by the ld. Counsel. As we notice that the COD itself noted that it was of the view that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the assessee in this case and the Committee allow....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arges is upheld. He takes note of the fact that duty has been paid and simply observed that penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act is imposable. There is no finding as regards the nature of suppression and how provisions of Section 11AC are attracted. The Joint Commissioner in his order-in-original has relied upon the circular issued vide No. 223/57/96-CX., dated 21-6-1996 which laid down the detailed procedure for valuation of the petroleum products. He has observed that on a careful study of the circular, it is seen that operating cost and return on investment of component retail petroleum outlet charge is to be included in the assessable value. He has observed that the fact that appellant was not including the same are not brou....