Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2010 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (9) TMI 907 - CESTAT, MUMBAITransaction value - Valuation (Central Excise) - Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) - Sold from June, 2002 to December, 2004 in bulk by manufacturer/refinery (ONGC) to oil marketing company (OMC) at import parity price (IPP), who after bottling it sold to dealers under “Administered Price Mechanism” (APM) of Government of India - Statutory invoice for clearances from refinery showing payment of duty on APM - OMC received the difference in IPP and APM from Oil Pool Account maintained by Ministry of Petroleum, however, ONGC did not receive any subsidy - On IPP recovered from OMCs found to be more than APM, Department making demand for duty based on IPP - Held that:- Parliament introduced the concept of transaction value replacing the concept of normal price by amending Section 4 of the Central Excise Act w.e.f. 1-7-2000, which was a “fundamental departure” as acknowledged in CBEC’s Circular dated 30-6-2000 cited by counsel. The amended Section 4(l)(a) lays down that the assessable value for payment of duty of excise shall be the transaction value in a case where the goods are sold by the assessee for delivery at the time and place of removal, the assessee and the buyer of goods are not related and the price is the sole consideration for the sale. This provision of law makes it clear that, for the transaction value (as defined supra) to be reckoned as the assessable value, there are three conditions to be satisfied viz. (i) sale of the goods by the assessee for delivery at the time and place of removal, (ii) the assessee and the buyer not to be related, (iii) the price to be the sole consideration for the sale. In the present case, admittedly, the appellant satisfied all these conditions and, therefore, the assessable value of LPG which was sold in bulk, ex-refinery, to the OMCs should be its ‘transaction value’ as defined under the new Section 4(3)(d). There was a feeble suggestion at the bar that the difference between ex-refinery price recovered by ONGC from their buyers (OMCs) and the ex-storage price (APM price) on which duty was paid by ONGC be reckoned as a subsidy paid by the Government to ONGC through the OMCs. This plea is not supported by documentary evidence. Even if it be assumed that ONGC received subsidy from Government indirectly, the amount could only be included in the assessable value of the goods sold by ONGC to the OMCs as per the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in Commissioner v. Mazagon Dock Ltd. [2005 (7) TMI 105 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. Thus follow judicial discipline by causing the matter to be placed before the Hon’ble President for constitution of Larger Bench to consider and decide on the substantive issue, on which the view taken happens to be contrary to the view taken by a co-ordinate Bench in MRPL’s case [2008 (10) TMI 564 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] as although the facts of the present case are similar to it the apex court’s having been passed sub silentio in respect of the substantive valuation issue cannot, be followed as a binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution for the present case. The issue to be considered by Larger Bench is framed as follows :- “Whether a manufacturer of LPG selling the product in bulk, post-1-7-2000, to an OMC for further sale in packed form to dealers/domestic consumers and recovering ex-refinery price from the OMC as sale consideration is entitled to adopt ex-storage price (APM price) as the assessable value of the said product in bulk by ignoring the provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act as amended w.e.f. 1-7-2000.”
|