TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 651
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spense with the requirement of predeposit and take up the appeal itself for final decision. 2. The matter is before us in its 3rd round of litigation and details of earlier rounds are as under:- 1st round of litigation: Period involved : March 1994 to September 1996 Orders-in-Original passed in 1st proceedings : 15/07/1997 & 29/08/1997 Date of first CESTAT remand order : 30/11/2000 Date of dismissal of Civil Appeal filed by the Deptt. At Supreme Court : 13/07/2004 2nd round of litigation: Date of 2nd OIO : 27/03/2007 Date of 2nd CESTAT remand order : 09/08/2010 3rd round of litigation: Date of impugned OIO : 29/05/2012 Duty demanded : Rs.16,20,02,255/- Penalty imposed : Rs.1,62,00,000/- 3. The appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which became the basis for payment of duty. The appellants were preparing and maintaining Out-Turn Statement(OTS) on daily basis wherein the appellants were maintaining a record of the quantity available in each storage tank at the start of the day and quantity available at the close of the day. 5. The appellants were issued show-cause notice from March 1994 onwards proposing to demand duty for the differential quantities between invoices and the OTSs and also duty on a portion of the price which was charged but not included in the assessable value. The show-cause notice had alleged that quantities cleared under invoices were in excess of OTS and therefore duty should have been paid on such excess quantity and inadmissible deductions sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....product has suffered duty, we find that the submission of the appellant that the Department has ignored the quantity of duty paid petroleum product receipts have not been taken into account for calculation of differential duty is correct. 8. As regards additional consideration, the following submissions were made:- a. The department has also raised a contention that though the Appellants are claiming dealers' commission as deduction from the assessable value while the same is being recovered from the dealers. On the basis this assumption, the Commissioner has disallowed the deduction on account of dealers' commission. b. The Appellants submit that this finding of the Commissioner is completely erroneous for the following re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....goods @ 20% - Rs. 20550.94 Rs. 2286.91 E Other delivery charges - Rs. 4329.06 Rs. 1469.29 F* Total value of the goods (C+D+E) - Rs. 127634.72 Rs. 26625.32 G Sales tax (a-), 27.31 % Rs. 34857.04 Rs. 4643.46 H Price billed to the customers (F+G) Rs. 162491.76 Rs. 31268.78 Total price for MS and HSD Rs. 193760.54 I. Dealers Commissioner as declared in the Invoice Rs. 1216.00 Rs. 212.00 Total Rs. 1428 J** Price received from customer as declared in the Inv....