I

• 31-1 4irt)lcbiq (3TitiR-v) k0:r 6041C0-1 RIcvr-t) *

cicq, 3-c:Err 21K:43 ara, ill Dect)Dcp urru, muraraft,

—380015.

51 ,fl

tea" : File No : V2(27) 44 /Ahd-l/2013

3frbT '1k-cz4I Order- In -Appeal No..AHM-EXCUS-001-APP-063-13-14

ft4'r Date : 27.12.2013 wtr c c) -1-trur Date of Issue 0 I. I u 8ft

3i-ff4-a 31-9--oTr (-V) trrftff

Passed by Shri. Anil Kumar, Commissioner (Appeal-V)

Tr Assistant Commissioner, Div.-III A'bad-I NI Wtt 97/AC/2013-REFUND ft-4- : 13/08/2013 t

Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 97/AC/2013 -REFUND Dated : 13108/2013 Issued by Assistant Commr., Central Excise, Div.-IV Ahmedabad-I..

TT -11 4-1 1-1c11 Name & Address of the Appellant /Respondent

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. Ahmedabad

utoTr arLit 3Tr-Tr 3ift-d)-Er 3T-Tiq cf)01 . 1 us *tr 34-rbr Af 724-0QA- 9 41 t Tram 3TRrwrtr chl 3TOF TIT a4-4=raTur 31-r#Tri71-ff c-b7 \1Utc1I Any person a aggrieved by this Order-In-Appeal may file an appeal or revision application, as

the one may be against such order, to the appropriate authority in the following way :

11-R" *NON WI" afftarur 3Tr-4-4-ff : Revision application to Government of India :

(1) Th"-- t-zi. c4I rr c 3T-Rffk4ii, 1994 cbl URI ard-d" 7M7 1T7 1:0 37 1"-OF 7TRT ct)) --URT A2.71 1:R-S- 3f-d-47 5-9t&Tvr 3Trk--- ZTZ-1 LN faM. 41'711 eRI, fa4rTr, t412t r-q-ff 4) 4 Fqff, 7171-q- 91 , 1, ft- r 110001 4 c 7r-41r ' -rftc (i) A revision application lies to the Under Secretary, to the Govt. of India, Revision Application Unit

Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, 4th Floor, Jeevan Deep Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi - 110 001 under Section 35EE of the CEA 1944 in respect of the following case, governed by first

proviso to sub-section (1) of Section-35 ibid

(ii) Trft 4-11Q1 chf\I 7f # \3-14 t-rf f+-t 417.--Fri7 qr. 31- ir ct, 1 ,-) err 4u-s-r4TR 41-cr--i-TrR Tri-F 7F 1WF qr c15 f+711- 4u-s-rTrR # c61 tu4 (ii) In case of any loss of goods where the loss occur in transit from a factory to a warehouse or to

another factory or from one warehouse to another during the course of processing of the goods in a warehouse or in storage whether in a factory or in a warehouse.

(() 417ff 7F-e WF 7N- rthr fqnc-i Trr . err 4-ito 41' ul .ER ■3 c41 q 1W-C. 1TPT 9TRT '&767 WR:ft VN" ?Tr t ►

In case of rebate of duty of excise on goods exported to any country or territory outside India of on excisable material used in the manufacture of the godds which are exported to any country or territory outside India.

zfR r .414-dr-q -r$-7 IT17ff 4re ( -crrF Trr a cp1) f'qzit -ff ft-4r oitn 91(4 -6)- 1

In case of goods exported outside India export to Nepal or Bhutan, without payment of duty.

Tr! 3Tfdli ■30-11q -I ■3 0-114 -1 ff yrd-T -i -q. vi 11

VI *ft--d , -4 c61 t- 3N y< 3fitzr vil *fl ffR1 7-4 Th-ZITIciTdAT 3T7Tf, 3T117 * a NI Mfta .4). *1 1-1z1 ITZ TfT El lq li Rfm 3441'441i (t2) 1998 URI 109 5 k I 'ftS-01 ft7 1T7 el

(d) Credit of any duty allowed to be utilized towards payment of excise duty on final products under the provisions of this Act or the Rules made there under and such order is passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on or after, the date appointed under Sec.109 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998.

1 (1) -41-4 ■3041q (3T M') f q91c1 A, 2001 'ftZ131 9 31c f f4f41:41Z Alf I *1-8 Pird-thr

14, trftm 34 r c i 11 lac 31-f tzr 'mac ft-4T +11 fl c vf-31-ft 74 3T4M 31747[ (61 •RiT21. 3T1t4-ff ft-4T ■J11-1 I fit7 I • TENT UM-I Th-T fl 31-dltd" 35-&

f1T-Ititff TrdF TiTa TiT2T t3TR-6 ti I cl 't Pit lit eft I

The above application shall be made in duplicate in Form No. EA-8 as specified under Rule, 9 of Central Excise (Appeals) Rules, 2001 within 3 months from the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated and shall be accompanied by two copies each of the 010 and Order-In-Appeal. It should also be accompanied by a copy of TR-6 Challan evidencing payment of prescribed fee as prescribed under Section 35-EE of CEA, 1944, under Major Head of Account.

(2) P%.Y.1-1 31-14-4.- 1 3TraT ■-1-1 > i *ic1 4 -1 lug FTUI W:14- ZIT ■3 ,k) 041 200/— tat-1 TTUT9. ∎YIN 3Ts ct)+-f -) ftq utI141 t 1000 / - littfi 1"1- \J-IN I

The revision application shall be accompanied by a fee of Rs.200/- where the amount involved is Rupees One Lac or less and Rs.1,000/- where the amount involved is more than Rupees One Lac.

-#F4 *— Rr 74 'clIct) 3111-41-4 rrzn-Pqm-R-crr 41 Zr Appeal to Custom, Excise, & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.

(i) m\--41-4 344ftzPT, 1944 4 ZTRT 35-41 /

Under Section 35B/ 35E of CEA, 1944 an appeal lies to

ci ,ficovfl ict,-1 i-4--4IraZit TrETT 91 *-4171 ■30-11q-I i \'Vc11(-11 t 31-111---4t4 DoT c6) Wrisr 3. 3TR. f i cP) C-

(a) the special bench of Custom, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal of West Block No.2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-1 in all matters relating to classification valuation and.

r[

rase

3

\3(M 1-IP 4 2 (1) c > A -&-d17 31-T11 -14 3-1=Yrii .114.1 "T- cl I cb 3T 1r R111 (PVT (ft-itd) 4 1:0WT alr4 fst- T, 31-611-4TOT4- 3t1-20,

61 R,-ttd 4E011 316414INN —380016.

(b) To the west regional bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at 0-20, New Metal Hospital Compound, Meghani Nagar, Ahmedabad : 380 016. in case of appeals other than as mentioned in para-2(i) (a) above.

(2) --417:1- (3T C) 1441, 2001 c41 zTRT 6 3i-d-TfU ATM: F$7 31TiN 31"trtZI . ITZITIOM714 Mpt 4 1 31-1tiFc, faFg 31-OFf i Trc 3ir4 r c, tit vf'd -zrf ,tet

4ii4i, arm 41141 30 (-1 4 1811 -1:119T -1:17 5 FRC( Tif \ifl ,4) c 4-1 ci -1:17 1000/— thti A74t eft I vel (-61 wiM" chrl 411+1 3TlZ d+11441 MI T691. .-7:17 5 TIT 50 -fRN c1ch t).cT' W2R 5000 /— i I ul ■i c) lit, c.61 4-fifl 30'evimi TriT Tur7 50

Tif ∎I ,M) wzrR l0000/— thti 1)--At t-Tir I 4 ltrii \96ILicb -9-r4 Z If c1

7-qz 4 ,414zi- c41 Ttr-d \jfl 9-rfk- 1 act> ol

YYI ■516'l UT RQ-Tff t 1 ft iiTP-T 500 / — 1t1R7 B1-Tf1

The appeal to the Appellate Tribunal shall be filed in quadruplicate in form EA-3 as prescribed under Rule 6 of Central Excise(Appeal) Rules, 2001 and shall be accompanied against (one which at least should be accompanied by a fee of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/- where amount of duty / penalty / demand / refund is upto 5 Lac, 5 Lac to 50 Lac and above 50 Lac respectively in the form of crossed bank draft in favour of Asstt. Registar of a branch of any nominate public sector bank of the place where the bench of any nominate public sector bank of the place'Where the bench of the Tribunal is situated. Application made for grant of stay shall be accompanied by a fee of Rs.500/-.

?TR- Lei 34-r--zr 4 4j,cri -g 1-jsi 31)--<zr -ucrtar 4fl f-zi-r 61c1 141 f fir u 1wrzi 4--4-4 ziarNit ••441eilf(Mu1 cf) ) 3P1 -Err c T 'Wct)k ft-zrr \Aim

In case of the order covers a number of order-in-Original, fee for each 0.1.0. should be paid in the aforesaid manner not withstanding the fact that the one appeal to the Appellant Tribunal or the one application to the Central Govt As the case may be, is filled to avoid scriptoria work if excising Rs. 1 lacs fee of Rs.100/- for each.

(4) •-q RI I (-1 zi rcri 3T Ti 1970 TRU ii Il I ci cbrl 31-13-11t—i f+-7 31TTH 3c i 3T1-0-q-9 TIT H 31T - T TRITR-2,110- Fq1:4719. uil cl'a 31T 4T t A Met lc '.6.50 ch I .- -11q1c-10

c1 4 11 61.11 .-rft7 I

One copy of application or O.I.O. as the case may be, and the order of the adjournment authority shall a court fee stamp of Rs.6.50 paise as prescribed under scheduled-I item of the court fee Act, 1975 as amended.

(5) col citc,) 1'31-1t chl 3T1z arm- 3frwffiult--41- 1/4,-1o1 wl -341-4r m--4131- .30-11q-1 scilct-rt 37-11A-4 •-- --IN-111(Mu1 (c1-)RII111) 1 -Z111., 1982 Ntd- t I

Attention in invited to the rules covering these and other related matter contended in the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982.

( 3 )

t.4

F.No: V2(27)44/Ahd-I/13

ORDER-IN-APPEAL

The present appeal has been filed by M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited,

Sabarmati Terminal, Near "D"Cabin, New Railway Colony, Sabarmati.Ahmedabad-

380019 (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) against 010 NO.97/AC/2013-

Refund dated 13.08.2013 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order), passed by

the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Division-IV, Ahmedabad —I (hereinafter

referred to as the adjudicating authority).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant were engaged in the manufacture

of excisable goods is engaged in the storage and clearance of Petroleum Products

viz. Motor Spirit (M. S.), High Speed Diesel Refined Diesel Oil (HSth/RDO), Superior

Kerosene Oil (SKO) and Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF) falling under Chapter 27 of

Central Excise Tariff.

2.1. The appellant had cleared the said Petroleum Products, as detailed in Show

Cause Notices listed at Annexure 'A' to the impugned order, under Rule 173N of the

erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 to different warehouses/places as shown in said

Show Cause Notices.

2.2. As per Rule 156 B(2) read with Rule 156A(2) of the erstwhile Central Excise

Rules, 1944, if the original application i.e. AR 3A endorsed with the re-warehousing

certificate is not received by the officer-in-charge of the warehouse of removal

within 90 days of the removal of the goods or within such extended period is

allowed by proper authority, the consignor shall pay duty on demand by proper

officer within 10 days of such a notice and if the duty is not so paid he shall not be

permitted to make fresh removal of any warehoused goods from his factory or

warehouse to another warehouse until the duty is paid or until the certificate of re-

warehousing is presented to the officer-in-charge of the factory or warehouse of

removal to his satisfaction.

3. The appellant had failed to produce the certificates regarding warehousing of

the goods removed with proper attestation of Central Excise Authority in respect of

various AR 3As under which the excisable goods were cleared under Rule 173 N of

the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944, as detailed in Annexure 'A' within 90 days

or such extended period as required under Rule 156 B (2) read with Rule 156

5 F.No: V2(27)44/Ahd-l/13

(A)(4)and Rule 173N of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944, 20 Show Cause

Notices as detailed in Annexure A were issued to the appellant asking hereunder: -

(1) The Central Excise duty amounting to Z 8,28,01,789/- mentioned in

Annexure 'A' should not be demanded and recovered from them under Rule 156

B(2) read with Rule 156 (A)(4) and Rule 173N and Rule 160 of the erstwhile Central

Excise Rules, 1944 all read with section 11 A of the Central Excise Act,1944.

(2) The penalty to the extent permissible under the law should not be imposed on

them under Rule 210 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 and for all the said

contraventions separately under respective SCNs

(3) The shall not be permitted to make fresh removal of any re-warehoused goods

from their factory or warehouse to another warehouse under Rule 156 B(2) read

with Rule 173 N of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944.

3.1. The adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand of Z. 8, 01, 28,083/-

and dropped the demand of '.26,73,706/-, he also imposed a penalty of Z

.2,00,000/- on the appellants vide 010 No. 84 to 103 dated 31.03.1998.

3.2. Being aggrieved against the above order the appellant filed an appeal with

Commissioner (Appeal). The Commissioner (Appeal) vide OIA No. 25/2001(18-Ahd-1)

CE/Commr.(A)/Ahd dated 18.01.2001 up held the confirmation of demand to the

extent of Z. 2,13,43,385/- (as per annexure to the OIA on the ground that there is

no entry number of re-warehousing register. He also upheld duty involved in 12 AR

3As, whose amount was not legible from the SCN produced before the

Commissioner (Appeal) on the same ground that there is no entry number of re-

warehousing register). The said amount was later on quantified as !.14,35,940/-.

Thus the total duty upheld by Commissioner (Appeal) was Z. 2,27,79,325/- For the

balance amount, the AR3A were signed by the consignee and not counter signed by

proper officer the same was remanded back to the original adjudicating authority to

see the AR 3As duly certified by the Central Excise officer on the consignee's end and

if he finds that the goods were duly warehouse at the consignee's end and have

been certified by the Central Excise officer in charge, then he should not demand

duty on these goods. He also reduced the penalty amount to Z. 50,000/- under the

Rule 210 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944.

6 F.No: V2(27)44/Ahd-I/13

3.3. Aggrieved by the above order, the appellant filed an appeal No.E/1288/01

dated 24.04.2001 with CESTAT. The Hon'ble CESTAT, Ahmedabad vide Order No.

A/1189/WZB/Ahd/09 dated 08.06.2009, observed that " they were unable to accept

the submission of the appellant that entry number is not at all a substantive

requirement and without entry number the AR3A submitted by the departmental

officers and requirement of counter signing of AR3A form as per rule , full

confidence has been reposed on the appellant and therefore procedural

requirement assumes greater importance. Further, entry number links register

maintained by the consignee warehouse with the actual quantkty received and

details of transportation. It is quite possible that on the saite day, several

consignments may be received and therefore it may not be possiblle for verification

to be conducted if entry number is not available. Manipulation at the level of

officers even though not on the part of the appellant company cannot be ruled out.

Therefore, in the interest of the company as well as the Revenud, entry numbers

must have been filed by the appellant." The Hon,ble bench therefore remanded the

matter to original adjudicated authority and directed appellant produced collateral

evidence or the details of entry number in the warehouse register by the

consignee. It was also ordered that if the appellant fails to prioduce collateral

evidence or entry number to the original adjudicating authority within three months

from the date of receipt of the order or within such extended period as original

adjudicating authority or Commissioner may allow, the duty involved shall be paid

and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) shall stand. The penalty amounting to

Z. 50,000/- imposed upon the appellant was set aside.

3.4. There after, Assistant Commissioner had adjudicated as per the order of

Hon'ble CESTAT vide 010 No. MP/58/AD/DA/2009 dated 30.11.2009, read with

Corrigendum dated.08.02.2010 and 18.02.2010, he Confirmed the duty of Z.

2,13,43,385/- + amount involved in 12 AR 3As listed in the OIA amount to Z

14,35,940/- Thus total duty confirmed comes Z 2,27,79,325/-

3.5. There after, being aggrieved with above order revenue also filed appeal with

Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that adjudicating authority was required to

carry out re-adjudicating for the part demand remanded back by the Commissioner

7 F.No: V2(27)44/Ahd-I/13

(Appeals) vide his OIA No.25/2001(18-Ahd-I)CE/Commr(A) Ahd dated.18.01.2001

and also re-adjudication of the amount confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals) as per

the CESTAT's Order NO.A/1189/WZB/AHD/09 dated.08.06.09. Further once Hon,ble

CESTAT was remand back the matter to the original adjudicating authority the

entire, the case was required to be re-adjudicated, therefore it was appealed that

the entire case involving Central Excise duty of Z. 8,01,28,083/- was required to be

re-adjudicated.

3.6. Being aggrieved with above order the appellant also filed appeal with

Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeal) vide their OIA No. 196 to

197/2010 (Ahd-I)CE/MM/Commr(A)Ahd dated 06.07.2010 decided both the appeals

and held that the adjudicating authority in his order dated 08.12.2009 had not fully

followed the instructions issued by the Commissioner (Appeals)/Tribunal in the

remand order as he had not verified the evidence of re-warehousing

certificate/collateral evidences for the Central Excise duty involving Z. 8,01,28,083/-

and directed the adjudicating authority to re-examine the AR3As duty countersigned

by the Central Excise Officer of the consignee's and involving the Central Excise Duty

of 2.5,73,48,758/- and also directed to re-examine the AR3A in respect of which

the entry number & date of re-warehousing register are not mentioned, involving

the Central Excise duty amount to 22,27,79,325/-.Thus entire case involving Central

Excise duty of Z. 8,01,28,083/- was required to be re-examined.

3.7. Aggrieved by the Commissioner (Appeal) OIA No.196 to 197/2010 (Ahd-

1)CE/MM/Commr.(A) Ahd. dated 06.07.2010 the department had preferred an

appeal before CESTAT and the Hon'ble CESTAT set-aside the impugned order and

ordered the adjudicating authority to decide matter afresh. Thus the matter was

remanded to the adjudicating authority by the Hon'ble CESTAT vide its order No.

A/1607-1608/WZB/AHD/2011 & M/1675/WZB/AHD/2011 dtd. 29.08.2011

3.8. Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Division-IV, Ahmedabad-I vide order

NO.MP/02/DC/2012/D dated 17.05.2012 (i) confirmed the demand of Z. 8, 28, 01,

789/- under the provisions of Rule 156-B (2) read with Rule 173 N of Central Excise,

Rules 1944. (ii) Imposed penalty of 2.2,00, 000/- under the provisions of Rule 210 of

c■

8 F.No: V2(27)44/Ahd-l/13

the Central Excise Rules'1944. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant had filed

appeal with Commissioner(Appeal) which was decided vide OIA No 121/2012/Ahd-

1/CE/AK/Commr.(A)/Ahd dated 29.12.2012 confirmed the amount of Rs.42,02,083/-

and for the balance amount remanded the matter back to the adjudicating

authority. Department has filed an appeal before CESTAT against 01A dated

29.12.2012 issued by Commissioner(A) which is pending decision before CESTAT.

Vide the impugned Order dated 13.08.2013, the adjudicating authority has ordered

appropriation of the amount of Rs. 42,02,083/- towards the pending government

dues under Section 142(1)(A) of the Customs Act, 1962/Section 11 of the CEA,1944

and rejected the refund claim for the remaining amount of Rs. 1,80,03,202/- claimed

by the appellant under Section 11 B being pre-mature. Being aggrieved by the

impugned order dated 13.08.2013, the present appeal dated 15.10.2013 has been

filed by the appellant on the following grounds:

i) that it may be held that rejection of refund, holding it as premture is incorrect

and unlawful ;

ii) that it may be held that adjustment of refund against demand is n t permissible

iii) that it may be held that the impugned order in original is not sustainable and

deserves only to be set aside;

4. Personal hearing in the matter was fixed for 12.11.2013. Shri Ashok Kumar Jain,

Senior Manager, Finance(WR), Mumbai and Shri Pankaj Mahindra, Accounts Officer,

Sabarmati Terminal appeared on behalf of the appellant and reiterated the

submission made earlier and additional submissions were made during the Personal

hearing. The appellant informed that the 20 SCNs pending against them for

demand of Rs. 8.28 crores was decided finally vide OIA dated 31.12.2012

underwhich Rs. 42,02,083/- was confirmed. The above 01A has been challenged by

the department before CESTAT on the ground of power to remand and no stay has

been obtained and requested to allow the appeal.

5. I have carefully gone through the records of the case, appeal filed by the

appellant. I find that the moot issue to be decided in this case is whether the

appropriation of the amount of Rs. 42,02,083/- towards the pending

government dues under Section 142(1)(A) of the Customs Act, 1962/Section 11

of the CEA, 1944 and rejection of refund claim for the remaining amount of Rs. 1

9 F.No: V2(27)44/Ahd - I/13

1,80,03,202/- claimed by the appellant under Section 11B rejected by the

adjudicating authority being pre-mature can be granted to the appellant or

otherwise.

5.1 In order to verify the facts of the case, fact-finding report was called for vide

this office letter dated 21.11.2013 from the jurisdictional Assistant

Commissioner(JAC). JAC vide letter dated 5.12.2013 has submitted verification

report which is as under :

"Please refer your letter F.No. V.2(27)44/Ahd-1/2013 dated 21.11 2013

on the above subject.

In this regard, the pointwise information is as follows.

There is no demand pending against IOC except for the 20 SCN's

amounting to Rs. 8.28 crores issued to IOC Ltd as per the records

available with this office.

The assessee M/s IOC Ltd has applied for the refund of amount of

Rs.2,22,05,285/- Deposited by them which was adjusted by the Assistant Commissioner, towards pending dues of the

claimant in a separate case . In that case, Commissioner (A)

had vide 0/A No 121/2012 (Ahd-1)CE/AK/Commr(A)/Ahd-I dated 18.1.2013(para

5.8) has confirmed the amount of Rs. 42,02,083/- and for the

balance amount had remanded the matter back to the

adjudicating authority. Copy of the said 01A is enclosed for

reference.The case is in call book as the department had gone

into appeal against the said 0/A. Assessee had filed the refund

claim for the total amount of Rs. 2,22,05,285/- out of which the

amount of Rs. 42,02,083/- confirmed by the Commissioner(A)

was adjusted towards the confirmed Govt dues as per the above

referred 0/A and for the rest of the amount of Rs. 1.80,03,202/-,

rejected the refund claim as premature.

Appeal filed by the department in CESTAT against the 01A No.

121/2012/Ahd-1/CE/AK/Commr(A)/Ahd dated 29.12.2012 is

pending in CESTAT. Status report obtained from the website is enclosed for ready reference".

rAv

10 F.No: V2(27)44/Ahd - I 113

5.2 I find that as on date there is confirmed demand of Rs. 42,02,083/- against

the appellant which only can be recovered from the appellant. HoweNer, I find that

the adjudicating authority vide impugned order has appropriated the said amount of

Rs. 42,02,083/- towards pending govt. dues under Section 142(1)(A) of the

Customs Act, 1962/Section 11 of the CEA, 1944 and the balance amount of Rs.

1,80,03,202/ - is an unconfirmed demand which cannot be recovered from them as

appeal has been filed by the department before CESTAT which is pending decision

and is subjudice. The adjudicating authority has erred in passing the impugned order

to the extent that out of Rs.2,22,05,285/- claimed as refund by the appellant amount

of Rs. 1,80,03,202/ - has been been rejected on the ground as pre-mature as

department appeal is pending before CESTAT. I find that for the said amount of Rs.

1,80,03,202/ - no order has been passed by the Adjudicating Authority as it has been

remanded back vide my earlier Order dated 27.12.2012 fcr examination/

verification of documents in terms of CESTAT Order, and since theldepartment has

gone in appeal before CESTAT cannot be a ground to reject the refund.

6. In view of the above discussion and findings, I order that Refund of Rs.

1,80,03,202/- is admissible to the appellant with interest.

(ANIL KUMR)

COMMISSIONER (APPEALS-V), CENTRAL EXCISE,

AHMEDABAD.

D3te: /12/2013

ATTEST

(M .P. VYAS) UPERINTENDENT (APPEALS-V)

CENTRAL EXCISE,

AHMEDABAD-I.

BY REGD. POST A.D.

To, M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited,

Sabarmati Terminal, Near "D"Cabin ,

New Railway Colony, Sabarmati.

Ahmedabad-380019

Copy to:

1. The Chief Commissioner, Central Excise, Ahmedabad Zone, Ahmedabad

2. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-I,

3. T Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Division-IV Ahmedabad-I

he Superintendent (System) Central Excise, H.Q Ahmedabad-I for uploading the order on web site

5. PA to Commissioner (Appeals-V)