TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (11) TMI 275
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 intimation filed by them and indigenous non duty paid product on AR-3A and also duty paid petroleum products from other manufacturers of the same appellants Company and/or other Petroleum Companies - what are called by them as 'bridging' arrangements. The imported petroleum products and the indigenous petroleum products are stored in same tanks and are being accounted for under FIFO system of material management accounting i.e. first in first out basis. The goods received under the 'bridging' arrangements are entered in the Company's own record while the imported goods received under D-3 intimation and the indigenous goods received under AR-3A are entered in the RG-1 Register maintained under the Central Excise Rules. The appellants are transferring the duty paid goods received under the 'bridging' arrangements without entering the goods physically into the tanks. These goods are normally received in the road tank lorries and are being transferred to their customers under invoice being issued by the assessee. The imported goods and the indigenous non duty paid goods are also cleared likewise under the same series of invoices by the assessee. While clearing the indigenous non duty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... whole sale trade for delivery, at the time and place of removal, where the buyer is not a related person and the price is the sole consideration for the sale" : (i) The assessees were clearing the goods from 1-3-94, paying Excise duty on ad valoram basis, consequent to union budget 1994-95. (ii) Verification of invoices, cash memoranda and ICCR (invoice cum cash receipt) of the assessee reveal that they have been showing the price of the goods per Kilo Litre. This price is inclusive of Excise duty. To this cum-duty price sale tax at an applicable rate is added. It is observed that they also give Dealer's Commission from the price so calculated. However, at foot note of all the invoices they have been showing the amount including the Dealers Commission. It appears that the assessees have also been realising the Dealers Commission. It is also noticed that the cum-duty price is not always one and the same for all the invoices and differed from one customer to the other. Further it is noticed that when the duty arrived basing on their assessable value which was adopted in their OTS is deducted the amount arrived at is found to be in excess of the adopted assessable value. (iii) The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubsidised thru MOP. (ii) Actual siding shunting charges at the loading point and at the destination as per Railways. (iii) As per the MOP Oil Companies are expected to give free delivery to Customers within 39 RTKM radius of the supply location. The actual transportation cost incurred by the Oil Companies is partially recovered thru price which forms part of the other delivery charges balance amount is born by Oil Companies. For deliveries(iv) beyond 39 RTKM transportation charges at the rate 0.18 paise per KM/KL is being recovered thru pricing as per MOP guidelines balance actual transport cost being borne by respective Oil Companies. They have further stated that Dealers Commission loaded into the assessable value is not collected but paid to the Dealers based on the rate as fixed by the Ministry. However, it is observed in the invoices the amount actually collected is inclusive of Dealers Commission. 5.We have heard Shri Habibulla Badshah, learned Sr. Advocate along with Shri C. Manishankar, learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri G. Sreekumar Menon, learned SDR for the department. 6.The learned Sr. Counsel took us through the show cause notices and the adjudication or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to pay duty under the Act. Therefore, while earlier liability in the section was on every person and this liability to pay duty under the Act which has been introduced by the amendment is now also linked to the excisable goods under the Act which was not there in the earlier section. He therefore submitted that on the 'bridging' quantity they did not re-calculate any duty than what is done in the documents which they received along with the goods. (e) As regards the imported goods, they are Customs duty paid and they are not excisable goods, but the assessee/appellants are required to pay excise duty on the goods and therefore, demand under 11D for the 'bridging' quantity of the imported goods was not called for. As regards the indigenous goods being cleared, his submission is that since they are eligible for deduction and they have paid excise duty, no duty in the guise of excess excise duty was collected. (f) As regards the imposition of penalty, the learned Sr. Counsel submits that there is no case or cause for imposing penalty under the Central Excise Rules as the appellants have followed the prescribed procedure of payment of duty on the out turn reports which they were foll....