TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 1020
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant Shri J.Shankarraman,Advocate for the Respondent ORDER [Order per Sulekha Beevi, C.S. ] 1. The Revenue is in appeal against the order passed by Commissioner by which duty demand, interest and penalty proposed in the show cause notice, was dropped. 2. The respondent, M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation, a Government of India Undertaking is engaged in the business of refining and marketing of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 2002 to November, 2003. After adjudication the Commissioner dropped the proceedings initiated upon the three show cause notices on the ground that as per the show cause notice itself, the respondent, BPCL is seen to have filed RT-12 returns every month and therefore raising the demand subsequently alleging suppression of facts invoking extended period is not sustainable beyond one year. 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd losses occur in storage as well as while handling. The 0.5% or 1% whatever may be the admissible loss is only a guiding factor. Since there is no evidence of clandestine removal or pilferage, the losses exceeding even the permissible limit can be condoned treating them as genuine storage losses. Even Board in their circular referred to above have clarified that when the remission of duty on sto....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n RT-12 returns the department ought to have conducted periodical verification and satisfied themselves before raising a demand. This apart, the show cause notice dated 23-01-2003 shows that it is issued basing upon the Tank wise storage losses statements form 1/2002 to 6/2002 enclosed to ER-1 returns filed by respondent, and Tank wise storage losses shown in ER-1 from 7/2002 to 11/2002. 8. It is....