TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1069
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... imposed redemption fine. Further the Commissioner has also appropriated the duty of Rs. 1,18,67,234/- deposited by the importer under Section 18(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 towards duty payable. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant who is a Government of India undertaking, engaged in the refining and marketing of petroleum products. They receive and store imported as well as indigenous LPG in bulk and thereafter send it to various LPG bottling plants in the state of Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Goa for bottling and also for supply of LPG through retail dealers. They entered into an agreement with all other oil companies like IOCL, BPCL, IBP Co. Ltd. for the sale/purchase of LPG. As per the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arding the HSS charges to IOCL, the appellant remitted the differential duty on 06/09/2004 which was also recorded in their statements made during the investigation. Thereafter on receipt of the original documents, appellant submitted the same with Customs authorities with regard to finalise the issue. In this factual background, the appellant was issued show-cause notice dt. 13/03/2007 proposing to include the demurrage charges of Rs. 22,31,781/- paid to the supplier, on account of detention of the vessel beyond the 'lay time', into the assessable value of the imported LPG and High Sea Sale (HSS) commission Rs. 1,01,39,559/- into the assessable value, by invoking the provisions of Rule 9(2)(a) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 and to in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... transaction value. He further relied upon the following decisions:- i. Shine Petroleum Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE [2008(224) ELT 143 (Tri. Bang.) - Further affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court - 2014(324) ELT A77 (SC). ii. Commissioner Vs. Grasim Industries Ltd. [2013(296) ELT 39 (Tri. LB)] In view of the settled position, he submitted that demand of demurrage charges is not sustainable. 5.2. The next issue on which learned counsel submitted that penalty is not imposable on the appellant. The main plea of the appellant is that there were divergent directions which were followed in different ports on the issue of inclusion of HSS commission. He further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Hyderabad Industries Vs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a settled law when goods are not available for confiscation, redemption fine is not imposable except in cases where seized goods have been released under bond. In support, he relied upon the following decisions:- i. Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. Vs. CC&ST [2015( ELT 149 (Tri. Bang.)] ii. Shiv Kripa Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner [2009(235) ELT 623 (Tri. LB)] iii. Kusters Calico Machinery Vs. CC [2016(334) ELT 141 (Tri. Mum.)] 5.4. He further submitted that the Commissioner in the impugned order has held that sub-section 3 of Section 18 of the Customs Act will be applicable in the present case to demand interest. He further submitted that sub-section 3 was inserted w.e.f. 13/07/2006 by Section 21 of the Taxation ....