TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 421
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ff 1985. They have a refinery in Visakhapatnam holding appropriate registration under Central Excise enactments. The Appellants are clearing the goods through pipeline as well as through coastal shipments to various destinations. 2. On withdrawal of warehousing provisions for mineral oil products with effect from 06.09.2004, and the introduction of the requirement of payment of duty at the time of removal from the Refinery, valuation of the goods being offered for sale at different destinations (locations) became a moot point, as far as the levy of excise duty is concerned. Accordingly, during the year 2007-08, provisional assessment was sought for determination of transactional value and excise duty payable. 3. The products are supplied ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lants and passed non-speaking Order in Appeal No.12/2012 (V-I) CE dated 06.03.2012. The grounds before Commissioner (Appeals) interalia were as follows: The Appellants refer to the impugned Order and they file this appeal with regard to the following areas covered in the said impugned Order, by relying on the following grounds which are without prejudice to one another: 1.1 In the impugned order, the amount of Rs. 23,47,449/- is levied towards interest after adjusting an amount of Rs. 2,70,550/- already paid by the Appellants towards interest. Thus the total interest levied for the said year amounts to Rs. 26,17,999/-. The Appellants submit that based on the Mumbai High Court decision in the case of CCE, Nagpur Vs Ispat Industries Limit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r to the extent it levied interest for an amount of Rs. 23,47,449/- may be set aside and the interest paid already for an amount of Rs. 2,70,550/- may be refunded to them; 2. In the impugned Order in Para 9, the Respondent has recorded that based on the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Visakhapatnam Order [OIA No. 145/2008 (V-I) CE dt. 29.12.2008], the date of finalization of provisional assessment under Rule 7 (3) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for the year 2007-08 is reckoned from 24.03.2022. The Appellants submit that the said Appellate Order is dated 29.12.2008 and the same was in the knowledge of the Department (the Respondent) ever since that date and hence the reckoning of the date with effect from 24.03.2011 is incorrect an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent for the purpose of finalization of the assessment. As per the said Attachment, the Appellants are entitled for the refund of Rs. 16,75,413/-, being the excess duty confirmed in the impugned order. The Appellants pray for the direction of the Hon'ble Appellate Commissioner to the Respondent to refund such excess duty collected along with applicable interest. 4. The Appellants submit that there are two calculation/casting errors while working out the differential duty for the following vessels: Vessel Name BL no. Inv. No. / Date Product/ Quantity (KL) Particulars L.N. Ekka 7000855/1.1.2008 7000856/4.1.2008 7000857/5.1.2008 7000855/5.1.2008 MS As per Rule 7 of Central Excise Valuation(Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Ru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Order in Original passed by the Respondent to the extent it levied the interest be set aside and the amount paid towards interest before finalization of provisional assessments may please be ordered to be refunded to the Appellants. The Appellants further pray that the Respondent may be directed to carry out the rectification for other excess duty payments as covered in the paras 5 and 6 above and refund the excess duty considered in the impugned order along with applicable interest. In the light of the foregoing, the Appellants pray that - An amount of Rs. 2,70,550/- paid by the Appellants towards interest before finalization of provisional assessments be refunded to them; - An amount of Rs. 1,26,72,327/- excess paid by the Appella....