Case Law Details
CA Urvashi Porwal
Brief of the Case
In the case of Commissioner Central Excise vs M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, it was held by Punjab and Haryana High Court that substantive benefits provided by a notification cannot be denied on account of procedural lapses by the assessee.
Brief Facts of the Case
The respondent-Corporation, who is engaged in the manufacturing of petroleum products, was issued a show cause notice dated 10.05.2007 by the office of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak on the ground that 5% EBP was exempted from payment of whole of central excise duty upto 30.06.2004 vide No.6/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 (as amended), under notification No.28/2002-CE dated 13.05.2002 (as amended) from Spl. A.E.D. and under notification No.15/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 (as amended) from AED. The said notifications were further amended and exemptions were granted vide notification No.12/2004-CE dated 04.02.2004 giving exemptions upto 30.06.2004 and by notification No.37-39/2004-CE dated 04.08.2004 giving exemptions from 04.08.2004 and by notification No.4/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 (as amended). As per the show cause notice, the respondent-Corporation did not satisfy the condition regarding the duty paid character as the ethanol blended motor spirit was being prepared after the tank truck was filled with 95% unleaded MS 87 octane and 5% of ethanol from different storage tanks. The ground for denying the exemption was that the invoices of unleaded motor spirit were being prepared after the tank truck was filled and the duty liability etc. was being paid at the time of removal from the factory gate. The duty on the motor spirit was being paid by the Corporation at the time of the clearance of the final product which was 5% EBP. Accordingly, as per the show cause notice, the provisions of Rule 4 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (for short, the ‘Rules) has been violated as the excisable goods had been removed without paying the central excise duty leviable on the final product. Similarly, Rule 6 of the Rules regarding the assessment of duty by the Corporation was alleged not to be proper and correct and as per Rule 8 of the Rules, since the excisable goods had been removed without paying full duty in the manner provided and thus, proper records were not being maintained as per Rule 10, pertaining to daily stock account. Correct invoices were not being maintained, as per Rule 11, accordingly, the show cause notice was made final against the Corporation on the ground that it was also violation of Rule 12 as proper and correct monthly periodical returns had not been filed.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
