Per M. Veeraiyan : The Appeal No. E/1845/2005 by M/s IOCL is against the order of Commissioner No. 28/Demand/Commr.I/2005, dt.3.3.05 whereas the Appeal No. E/919/2006 is against the order of Commissioner No.60-61/Demand/Commr.I/2005, dt.28.11.05.

2. Heard both the sides.

3.1 The relevant facts, in brief, relating to Appeal No. E/1845/2005 wherein the challenge is against demand of interest are as follows:

(a) The appellant are clearing various petroleum products through Tank Wagons and Lorries to various locations with out payment of duty under Bond under cover of AR3A. These movements are under the warehousing provisions contained in Rule 20 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and the notifications issued there under.

(b) The present dispute relates to the period Oct.03 to March 04.

(c) There were cases where the quantities re-warehoused were found to be lesser than quantities dispatched and treated as transit losses.

(d) Up to 1% of the loss is condonable in terms of Board's Circular No. 261/6/20/02-CX-8. dt. 31.10.85.

(e) The appellants on their own, before issue of show cause notice determined the transit losses which were in excess of 1% and deposited the duty.

(f) Th