JUDGMENT
K.K. Bhatia, M(T)
1. These are two sets of appeals arising out of two Orders-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna – one dated 31.10.2000 and another dated 30.11.2000. The appellants, M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. have a refinery at Barauni. They are manufacturing and despatching petroleum products falling under Chapter 27 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are despatching the products under bond without payment of duty by following the AR-3A Procedure either through tankers or through pipeline to their various deposts having bonded warehouses at different places. The petroleum products are despatched under AR-3As and the confirmation of re-warehousing of the same is received by receipt of the returned AR-3As duly countersigned by the Central Excise Officers in charge of the receiving stations. In Appeal Nos. E-43, 85-88/2001 during the period from June, 1998 to February, 1999 and in Appeal Nos. E-141-143/2001 during the period from July, 1998 to November, 1998, the Central Excise Officers in charge of the Barauni Refinery, did not receive the duly endorsed AR-3As certifying the re-warehousing of the petroleum products despatched at that end. Similarly, the petroleum products sent through the pipeline also were not properly accounted for as per the Procedure prescribed under a trade notice. Consequently, the appellants were put on notice calling upon them to show cause why duty amounts as per the particulars below should not be realised from them and why penalties should not be imposed on them under 173Q:-
Sl.No. Show Cause Notice No.&Date Period involved Duty involved
—————————————————————
1) V(27)(3)114-e/Demand/98/6681 June,98 Rs.18,30,28,112.00
dated 30.11.98
2) V(27)(3)37-E/Demand/99/1787 Oct.,98 Rs.20,06,64,512.10
dated 31.03.99
3) V(27)(3)68-E/Demand/99/3162 Dec.,98 Rs.07,61,19,240.00
4) V(27)(3)74-E/Demand/99/3691 Jan.,99 Rs.19,26,02,837.00
dated 17.06.99
5) V(27)(3)112-E/Demand/99/4261 Feb.,99 Rs.20,47,67,572.00
dated 29.07.99
For Appeal Nos.E-141-143/2001:-
Sl.No. Show Cause Notice No.& Date Period involved Duty involved
---------------------------------------------------------------
1. V(27)(3)125-E/Demand/98/7122 July,98 Rs.9,77,31,116.00
dated 24.23.98
2. V(27)(3)14-E/Demand/99/133 Sept.,98 Rs.18,09,59,390.00
dated 27.02.99
3. V(27)(3)61-E/Demand/99/2390 Nov.,98 Rs.14,22,80,036.00
dated 06.05.99
1.1 Not being satisfied with the reply of the party, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna vide his above-said two Orders, confirmed the duty amounts enumerated above against eh above appellant company and further imposed various penalties on them.
2. The present appeals are against the above Orders of the Commissioner of Central Excise. Matters are listed today for hearing of the Stay Petitions. We have heard Shri M.P.Sinha, learned Consultant assisted by S/Sri S.Basak, Senior Accounts Officer and S.Kaushal, Deputy Manager of the applicant/appellant company and Shri V.K.Chaturvedi, S.D.R. for the Revenue.
3. Since the matter lies in a small premise, we grant stay to the applicants and take up the matter for final disposal. Learned Consultant for the appellants submits that the re-conciliation documents have already been submitted to the concerned Central Excise Authorities as per the prescribed AR-3A Procedure and also the Procedure prescribed under a trade notice for re-warehousing of the goods despatched by a pipeline. He, further, submits that in similar cases, this Bench in the Order No. A-1790/CAL/2000 dated 1.11.2000, has already remanded the matter to the original authority for re-consideration of the submissions of the party and passing a de novo Order. He is requesting that the present cases may also be remanded for re-consideration in the same terms. Shri V.K.Chaturvedi, learned S.D.R. representing the Revenue, has no objection. He, however, submits that a time-frame may be given to the appellants to submit the necessary documents to the adjudicating authority certifying the re-warehousing of the goods.
4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. The matter relates to the despatch of the bonded goods without payment of duty from the Barauni Refinery of the appellant company to the various bonded warehouses at different stations. The demand has been confirmed on them for allegedly not properly accounting for the goods and not submitting the AR-3As and other documentary evidence certifying the re-warehousing of the bonded goods. As rightly contended by the learned Consultant for the appellants, (sic) in similar matters, the issue has been remanded to the original authority for passing a de novo Order on taking into consideration the evidence submitted by the appellants. The remand has been made in the terms as extracted below:-
5. We have heard both sides and perused the relevant documents brought on record. The question involved is whether the subject goods were rewarehoused at the destination. The answer to this can be found only through the mechanism devised under the aforementioned Trade Notice which envisages submission of periodical reconciliation statement. As admitted by the appellants, there was a failure on their part in this regard during trouble. Nevertheless, the appellants did submit the statements for the past periods as well as for the year, 1994-1995. From the observation of the Commissioner, as highlighted by the ld.Advisor and quoted in para 3 supra, it is evident that the said statements were not subjected to proper verification and check by the Department and the aspect of admissible losses was also not considered. We, therefore, find force in the above arguments of the ld. Advisor, As the mystery of rewarehousing can be unfolded by actual verification of the relevant records, we think it fit to remand the matter to the Commissioner for a fresh adjudication. Order accordingly. Needless to mention that during the denovo proceedings, the Commissioner shall get the rewarehousing particulars verified by the concerned Range Officers and also give a reasonable opportunity to the appellants to submit further evidence, if any, in defence of their case.”
5. In view of the above, we set aside the Orders passed by the Commissioner and remand the matters to him for re-consideration (sic) in the same terms and condition as specified above. The appellants shall furnish to him the necessary evidence and documents in support of their case within one month of the receipt of this Order. The Commissioner, thereafter, shall pass the Final Order in due course. The appellants shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for hearing before taking the final view in the matter.
6. The appeals are thus allowed by way of remand in the above terms. Stay Petitions are also disposed of accordingly.
Dictated in the open court.