TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 929
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bai" having the office of the Commissionerate at the address "16th Floor, Satra Plaza, Sector 19-D, Palm Beach Road, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 705", due to change in the territorial jurisdiction after introduction of GST regime vide Notification No.13/2017-C.E. (N.T) dated 09.06.2017 and as the appellants-assessee falls in their jurisdiction. As the revised name and address of the respondent correctly reflect the revised jurisdictional departmental authorities under whose jurisdiction the appellants-assessee is functioning for the purpose of Central Excise, the miscellaneous application is allowed. Registry is directed to carry out the necessary changes for record purpose. 3.1 Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellants herein is, inter alia, engaged in the manufacture and sale of petroleum products classifiable under Chapter 27 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, obtained from their petroleum refinery located at Mahul, Mumbai. For this purpose they are duly registered with jurisdictional Central Excise department with Registration No. AAACB2902MXM036. The petroleum products are removed from the refinery under warehousing bond, without payment of duty to other w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under Section 11AB ibid, except in two SCNs where interest was demanded under Section 11A ibid and in those cases, the appellants had paid the confirmed duties within the prescribed period of three months, thereby arising no occasion for payment of interest thereon. Besides the above, the original authority had imposed penalty on the appellants under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 20 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid orders of the original authority, the appellants have filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone - II, who vide Order dated 22.02.2006 had upheld the orders of the original authority in respect of duty demands, and set aside the order in respect of penalties imposed on the appellants by holding that the same were not warranted, as they became liable to payment of duty along with interest. Feeling aggrieved with the above order to the extent of payment of interest on the duty amount paid by them on the transit losses which are in excess of the condonable limit of 1%, the appellants had filed an appeal before the Tribunal in Appeal No. E/954/ 06-Mum. which was disposed of by pass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent. per annum, as is for the time being fixed by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, on such duty from the date of expiry of the said period of three months till the date of payment of such duty:...... (Prior to Finance Act, 2001 i.e., upto 10.05.2001) Section 11AB. Interest on delayed payment of duty. - (1) Where any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty, the person liable to pay duty as determined under sub-section (2) of section 11A shall, in addition to the duty, be liable to pay interest at such a rate not below eighteen per cent. and not exceeding thirty-six per cent. per annum, as is for the time being fixed by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, from the first day of the month succeeding the month in which the duty to have been paid under this Act or the rules made thereunder or from the date of such erroneous refund, as the case may be, but for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay of the month succeeding the month in which the duty to have been paid under this Act. Further under sub-section (2) of Section 11AB ibid has also been specifically provided that the changes brought as above shall not be applicable to cases where the duty had become payable are to have been paid before the enactment of the Finance Bill, 2001 i.e., demands prior to 11.05.2001. 6. In the present case, the facts are not in dispute that the appellants had paid the duty demands confirmed by the original authority within the prescribed period of 3 months. Further, the authorities below during adjudication of the disputed demands have dropped the proposal for imposition of penalty on the appellants. The facts on record also show that the appellants have followed the procedure prescribed by the CBIC in transferring petroleum products from their refinery to the warehousing stations without payment of duty, and subsequently on clearance of such products from their warehouses, they had paid the applicable excise duty. Accordingly, the authorities below have also held that there is no case of short payment of duty arising on account of fraud, collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmitted that though the ld. Commissioner has held that Cenvat credit availed and utilized on short receipt in excess of 0.1% is sustainable but has confirmed the demand without extending the benefit of 0.1%." 7. The law is very well settled. If the case of the appellant was that either the submissions have not been correctly recorded or that some of the submissions actually made before the Appellate Tribunal were not recorded and not dealt with, the remedy available for the appellant was before the Appellate Tribunal. Only on the basis of the letter addressed by the Cen.-Ex. Services, the Consultants appointed by the appellant, we cannot accept the contention that what is recorded in paragraph 2 of the Judgment is not correct. Paragraph 2 records the submissions which were made across the bar before the Appellate Tribunal and therefore, only on the basis of the said letter, we are unable to accept the contention that the submissions have not been correctly recorded by the Appellate Tribunal in the impugned Judgment. 8. In paragraph 5 of the Judgment, the Appellate Tribunal has relied upon a copy of the manual of departmental instructions on excisable manufactured products. In t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The said order relies upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (supra). The Commissioner of Central Excise has not noticed that the Division Bench was dealing with the Naphta and not the lubricating base oil. Moreover, the said decision is based on admitted position. The same is the case with the order dated 28th March, 2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. Therefore, none of the orders which are part of the said compilation will help the appellant. In almost all the orders, the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (supra) has been relied upon. As noted earlier, paragraph 9 of the said Judgment makes it very clear that the Division Bench proceeded on the admitted position that the transit loss of Naphta is permitted to be 1%. 12. In the present case, we find that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal and accordingly the appeal is dismissed." 7.2 In this regard, we find that the appeal filed by the department against the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble High Court in Special Leave Petition (Diary No.3042/2018) was dismissed by....