2015 (10) TMI 1920

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as per agreement with IOCL, the entire products are cleared to IOCL. Appellants have also cleared Carbon Block Feed Stock (CBFS) during the period from Sept 04 to Dec 05. Adjudicating authority in his impugned order confirmed the differential duty demand of Rs. 3,52,31,054/- on CBFS and dropped the demand for other periods. He confirmed the demand for the period from 6.9.2004 to Dec 05 under proviso to Section 11A (1) along with interest and also appropriated entire duty amount and interest of Rs. 23,02,911/- paid by the CPCL on 31.12.2005,18.1.2006 & 31.1.2006 and also imposed equivalent penalty under Section 11AC and also ordered that appellants are eligible for penalty of 25% of duty. The present appeal is only for waiver of penalty. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....N vide letter dt. 19.9.08 to the adjudicating authority at pages 37 to 46 of the paper book and refers to Heading (F) and para-7 of the reply. However, the adjudicating authority in the impugned order at para-20 has alleged that there is suppression of facts. He submits that there is no suppression of facts. He also submits that when the department themselves were not able to determine the value on cost computation or which is admitted by the adjudicating authority they have correctly computed the duty on CBFS as per RTP. He pleads for waiver of penalty as there was no suppression of facts or intention to evade payment of duty and also submits that department merely filing appal against Commissioner s order where RTP was accepted is not the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the month of September 2004. On perusal of letter along with enclosure, we find at Sl.No.6 of the table covers CBFS cleared to IOCL and CPCL customers by following Refinery Transport Price. We also find that the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise in his earlier OIO No.4 & 5/07 dt. 30.3.2007 against the same appellant accepted the transaction value of the clearance of CPCL to IOCL/IBP as per the RTP by relying Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in the case of HPCL Vs CCE Vizag  2006 (196) ELT A72 (SC). Whereas in the instant case, appellants were issued with SCN alleging suppression of facts for the subsequent period after the above OIO dt. 30.3.2007. Once the department has accepted the RTP price determined by the appellan....