CASTROL INDIA LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by M/s. Castrol India Ltd., the appellants herein challenging the Order -in -Appeal No. 29/2001 (M -I), dated 14 -3 -2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), by which he has upheld the order -in -original No. 60/2000, dated 30 -8 -2000 passed by the Assistant Commissioner confirming the differential duty demand of Rs. 55,96,547/ - under Section 11A of the C.E. Act, 1944 (the Act for short) besides imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,000/ - on the appellants under Rule 173Q of the C.E. Rules, 1944.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein are manufacturers of Lubricating oils falling under Chapter 2710.90 and lubricating preparations falling under chapter sub -heading 3403.00 of CET. The appellant company since August, 1999 has been clearing the lubricating oil in bulk i.e. in tankers on payment of duty on the value as determined under Section 4 of the C.E. Act, 1944 to M/s. Lubs and Greases Guindy for re -packing in smaller containers, packings and then clear it to their depots for further sale to customers. As this was not acceptable to the department and duty should have been paid under Section 4A value at depot, a show cause notice dated 29 -2 -2000 was issued by the range officer to demand differential duty of Rs. 55,96,547/ - for the period from 1 -8 -99 to 31 -1 -2000 and to impose penalty and the show cause notice culminated in the original authority passing the order -in -original whereby the original authority has demanded a duty of Rs. 55,96,547/ - under Section HA of the C.E. Act, 1944 besides imposing a penalty of Rs. 5000/ - under Rule 173Q of the C.E. Rules, 1944. Against that order, the appellants filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who by the impugned order upheld the order of the original authority. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellants have come in appeal on the following grounds :

(3.) Shri N. Venkataraman, learned Counsel for the appellants argued the matter on the above lines and submitted that the decision of the Tribunal in their own case reported in 2000 (118) E.L.T. 35 and that of the Savitha Chemicals (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the present case and he submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable and is required to be set aside.