Tax Appeals Commission determination 91TACD2021 regarding Customs & Excise, 2021

• Administrative Decision Number: 91TACD2021
• Year: 2021
• Date: 25 May 2014
• Subject Matter: Customs & Excise
• Appellant: trading as
• Respondent: REVENUE COMMISSIONERS

1

91TACD2021

BETWEEN/

trading as

Appellant

V

REVENUE COMMISSIONERS

Respondent

DETERMINATION

Introduction

1. This is an appeal against an assessment to excise duty dated 31 July 2017, in the sum

of €160,566.58 in respect of the supply of 426,200 litres of marked mineral oil

(‘MMO’) by the Appellant in respect of the period 14 November, 2013 to 25 May, 2014.

2. The assessment relates to four supplies of MMO by the Appellant to

trading as and to eleven supplies of MMO by the

Appellant to delivered to

3. The Respondent took the view that the supplies of MMO the subject of this appeal were

not made by the Appellant in the manner contended by the Appellant. Following a

2

4.

Revenue audit undertaken by the Respondent in August, 2014, an assessment to

excise duty in the sum of €160,566.58 in respect of the supply of 426,200 litres of

marked mineral oil (‘MMO’) by the Appellant in the period 14 November, 2013 to 25

May, 2014, was raised on 31 July, 2017. The Appellant duly appealed.

Background

The Appellant resides at and trades as

. At all material times the Appellant was fully licenced to trade in auto fuels

and marked fuels.

5. During the period 14 November, 2013 to 21 May, 2014, the Appellant’s records

contained the following supplies of MMO, the subject of the assessment raised:

Date

Customer

Litres of MMO

14/11/13

36,000

19/11/13

28,000

22/11/13

38,000

25/11/13

38,000

14/02/14

.

38,000

20/02/14

.

30,000

07/03/14

.

20,000

12/03/14

.

20,000

25/03/14

.

38,000

04/04/14

.

25,200

15/04/14

.

20,000

24/04/14

.

20,000

30/04/14

.

20,000

08/05/14

.

20,000

21/05/14

.

25,000

Total

426,200

3

6. The four consignments to were in each case sold by

to . On the same day and while the fuel was in depot in

, it was sold by . to the Appellant and on

the same day sold by the Appellant to .

7. The records of show customer as the destination of

each load as the premises of the Appellant at and the haulier as

, a company owned by the Appellant, for three loads and ,

for one load.

8. The eleven consignments to ., were sold by to

and on the same day and while the fuel was still in depot in

, sold by to the Appellant and on the

same day sold by the Appellant to . immediately sold

the fuel to and engaged the

Appellant to deliver the fuel to .

9. The records of show customer as Ltd., the destination of

each load as the premises of the Appellant at , and the haulier as (a

company owned by the Appellant) for ten consignments and ,

for one consignment. Neither nor were

employees of the Appellant and neither invoiced for their services.

10. The Appellant furnished bank records showing payment having been received by

electronic funds transfer for the sale of the fuel to and produced ‘delivery

note/invoice’ documents purporting to show that the eleven consignments (invoiced

by the Appellant to ) were delivered by the Appellant to

customer,

.