TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 720
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r transferred losses or on failure to furnish re-warehousing certificate. 2.1. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise vide Order-in-Original No. 117/98/DC/BPS dated 25109.1998 adjudicated the 12 Show Cause Notices and confirmed duty demand of Rs. 2,42,09,911/- after allowing 0.5% and 0.75% as condonation losses. 2.2. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide Order-in-Appeal No. RJB/48/M-II/2000 dated 08.09.2000 held that the computation of recoverable duty is correct and the order passed is also correct. That so far as show cause notice in respect of sl. no. 1 and 10 are concerned the assesse had claimed that they are having relevant copies of re-warehousing AR 3 A, the case was remanded back to Deputy/Assistant Commissioner to decide the same afresh taking into consideration the condonable loss. 2.3. The Joint Commissioner vide Order-in-Original No. 04/2003/JC/RLM dated 16.04.2003 held that Show Cause Notice issued at Sr. No. 1 and 10 are not in dispute, that in show cause notices at Sl. No. 3,4,7 and 9 re-warehousing certificates were submitted by the applicant, that in show cause notices at Sl. No. 2,5,6 and 8 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inery tanks. That the tanker Basaveshwara was loaded with products for discharge at M/S Indian Oil Corporation at Vasco, Goa. That due to certain technical problems the cargo could not be discharged at the destination port and was received back at the applicant's refinery at Mumbai. That the products were duly received back into the tanks of applicant's refinery and duly accounted in the stock register RG-I maintained by them at the refinery. That the relevant D 3 filed in this regard and the re-warehoused AR3As were produced for verification but have not been considered by the adjudicating authority. 4.2. That the duty demand of Rs. 3,15,255 /- and Rs. 84,80,524 /- (Total Rs. 87,95,779/-) on this account does not survive and should be reduced from the duty demand. 4.3. That serial no. 7 and 10 relates to shipment of two products through a single ocean going tanker loaded on the same voyage. That these are Aviation Turbine Fuel and SKO which are normally loaded together. That there was a gain in the re-warehousing of AR 3As relating to SKO covered by Show Cause Notice at sl. no. 7 and loss in AR 3As relating to ATF covered by Show Cause Notice at sl. no. 10. That taken to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the duty demand. 4.7. The applicant placed reliance on following case laws: Suresh Tobacco & Company Vs UOI (High Court of Orissa) 2007(213) ELT 429(Tri-Ahmedabad) IOCL Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedbad-2009(243) ELT 453 (Tri-Ahmedabad) 5. Personal hearing scheduled in this case on 27.07.2015 was attended by Shri Rahul Yadav, Assistant Commissioner on behalf of department who reiterated grounds of revision application and stated that with regard to Sl. No. 1 & 10 there is no evidence that goods were received back in the refinery and proper procedure is not followed by the applicant. Ms. P. Vedavalli, Senior Manager (Finance), HPCL attended the hearing on behalf of the applicant who reiterated the grounds of revision application and also submitted additional written submission reiterating the same grounds and stated that demands pertaining to SCNs at Sr. No. 1,11,10 are being contested. That Sr. No. 1 & 11 question of endorsement at receiving end does not arise as goods were received back by the refinery due to technical problems and were not re-warehoused. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records available in case file, oral & written su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Mumbai-Il vide Order-in-Original No. SP/19/ADC/M-II/2010 dated 10.01.2011 observing that re-warehousing certificates were an issue only in show cause notices no. 1,10,11 and therefore considered only these three cases and confirmed the duty amounting to Rs. 1,41,94,512/-. Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No BC/331/M-II/201112 dated 27.02.2012 rejected the appeal of the applicant. Now, the applicant has filed this Revision Application before the Central Government on the grounds mentioned at para 4 above. 8. Government observes that by its Order No. 358/2004 dated29.10.2004, the Government had remanded the case back only pertaining to the show cause notice where re-warehousing certificates with proper endorsements were claimed to have been submitted by the applicant and deposit of duty done as under: 13. However, in those cases where submissions of re-warehousing certificates is the issue, the authorities below held that proper endorsements are not present Govt. notes that the applicants are reputed NavRatna Public Sector Undertaking & they submit that proper accounting of the subject goods has been done. They also submit that the deposit of duty has already been made.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ehouses but nothing is coming on the records that the sat77e has been reached to the said destination mentioned in the AR 3As. 10. Thereafter, Commissioner (Appeals) in impugned Order-in-Appeal No. BC/331/M-II/2011-12 dated 27.02.2012 has discussed the factual aspects and observed in relevant paras as under: 6. In terms of the above provisions, it is incumbent upon the appellant to procure the re-warehousing certificate and submit the same to the concerned Central Excise officer within 90 days of transport permit. Non-submission of the same within 90 days would make the appellant to pay duty. 7. Further, in terms of Rule 156 B (2), if the appellant procures the said certificate with proper endorsement, after the mandatory 90 days and the same is produced before the proper Central Excise officer, then he can seek refund of the duty paid under Rule 156 A. 8. The appellants claimed that they have produced copies of D-3 to the lower Adjudicating Authority, hence the same may be allowed With reference to this claim, the lower Adjudicating Authority, has dearly made a remark that the appellants have produced D-3 copies but the same were not countersigned by the concerned Central Exci....