w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai v/s M/s. K.T.V. Oil Mills

Company & Directors' Information:- K.T.V. OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40300TN2012PTC085926

Company & Directors' Information:- N K OIL MILLS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U15201GJ1994PTC022669

Company & Directors' Information:- B P OIL MILLS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15142UP1965PLC003232

Company & Directors' Information:- K P L OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15142KL1983PTC003685

Company & Directors' Information:- N K B OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15142KL1999PTC013095

Company & Directors' Information:- K K K OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15142KL2000PTC013621

Company & Directors' Information:- S N OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15142HR1986PTC025702

Company & Directors' Information:- G. B. OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15326HR1985PTC019817

Company & Directors' Information:- R. OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15141DL1992PTC047883

Company & Directors' Information:- J K OIL MILLS COMPANY LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15143UP1955PLC002570

Company & Directors' Information:- N N OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15147MH1999PTC117989

Company & Directors' Information:- J & T OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15141KL2006PTC019754

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND R OIL MILLS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U15315CH1994PTC014265

    Appeal Nos. E/95 of 2004 & E/414 & 415 of 2004

    Decided On, 10 August 2010

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai


    Shri C. Rangaraju, SDR for the Appellant. Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, Advocate for the Respondents.

Judgment Text

Per Jyoti Balasundaram

1. The issue in dispute in this appeal is whether benefit of concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 20/99-Cus. dated 28.2.1999 as amended by Notification No. 139/99-Cus. dated 30.12.1999 is available to the assessees on import of crude sunflower seed oil. The benefit has been extended by the lower appellate authority in separate orders all of which are challenged by the Revenue in the present appeals on the ground that there is a shortage of oil in the quantities between the Bills of Entry and the actual quantity received and used in the refinery.

2. We have heard both sides. We find that the quantity as per shore tank receipt has been taken while the Revenue contends that the quantity in the ship ullage survey report is required to be adopted. The apex Court?s decision in NOCIL - 2002 (142) ELT A280 (SC) has been relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals). He has also relied upon CBEC?s Circular No.96/2002-Cus. dated 27.12.2002 to hold that it is the quantity received in the shore tank which is required to be accepted. In the light of the apex Court?s decision cited su

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

pra, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned orders which we accordingly uphold. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.