2017 (5) TMI 1385

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d the duty along with interest. Since a common issue is involved in both the appeals, they are being disposed by this common order. 2. The details of both the appeals are given herein below:- Appeal Nos. E/538/2006 E/539/2006 Installation Nallalam Mylatty Period of dispute September 2004 September 2004 Date of SCN 01/09/2005 31/08/2005 Order-in-Original No.22/2005 dt. 30/12/2005 No.22A/2005 dt. 30/12/2005 Amount of duty involved Rs.97,23,801/- Rs.19,41,538/- Stock of LSHS 4686.619 MT 940.466 MT 3. Briefly, the facts of the present case are that the appellant is engaged in the refining and marketing of pretroleum products through a network of installations and depots. The i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stallations i.e. Nallalm and Mylatty, as on date of the withdrawal of warehousing facility, were cleared to KDPP and KPCL as per the Notification No.6/2002 dt. 01/03/2002 at nil rate of duty. Appellants were issued with show-cause notices proposing to demand duty on the stock of LSHS held on the midnight of 5th/6th of September 2004 on the ground that duty is payable on the quantity remaining in stock consequent to withdrawal of the warehousing facility in terms of Circulars dt. 04/09/2004 and 04/01/2005. The appellant rebutted the allegations in the show-cause notice and submitted that though the Notification No.17/2004-CE(NT) dt. 04/09/2004 withdraws the warehousing provision on the goods, the notification under which the customer is elig....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hich are cleared without payment of duty to specified categories of end-users, the exemption would still be available. The learned counsel further submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the decision of this Tribunal in appellant s own case wherein it was held that on withdrawal of warehousing facility, the benefit of exemption Notification No.6/2002 cannot be withdrawn so long exemption Notification is in force. For this submissions, he relied upon the following decisions:- i. CCE, Mangalore Vs. BPCL Ltd. [2010(250) ELT 24 (Kar.)] ii. BPCL Vs. CCE, Coimbatore [2007(216) ELT 240 (Tri. Chen.)] iii. Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. CBEC [2004(163) ELT 10 (Kar.)] 5.2. He further submit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....CX.II dt. 02/03/1959. He further submitted that the said circulars are binding on the Department and contravention of the same is bad in law. For this submission, the learned counsel relied upon the following decisions:- i. Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Collector [1993(66) ELT 464 (Tri.)] ii. CCE Vs. Usha Martin Industries [1997(94) ELT 460 (SC)] 6. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 7. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record and after going through the judgements cited supra in the appellant s own case by this Bench, we are of the view that the issue is no more res integra and has been settled in favour of the appellant. ....