TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpugned order and the appeal is allowed. - E/476/2006 - 1289/2009 - Dated:- 24-9-2009 - S/Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (J) and P. Karthikeyan, Member (T) Shri G. Shivadass, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri M. Vivekanand, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)].- This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 3/2006 (H-IV) CE dated 24-1-2006, passed by the Commissioner of Customs Central Excise (Appeals-IT), Hyderabad. 2 . The brief facts of the case for consideration are as under: - The appellants are engaged in warehousing and marketing of petroleum products like SKO, ATF Furnace oil etc. falling under Ch. 27 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Petroleum products like Motor spi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alue by not adopting the price prevalent at the COCO out lets to discharge the duty liability, there by contravened the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants demanding the differential duty of Rs.7,39,478/- in terms of proviso to Section 11A(1) of the CE Act, 1944, proposed to demand interest on the duty amount, proposed to impose penalty equal to duty under Section 11AC and also proposed to impose penalty under Rule 25 of CE Rules, 2002. Against the Order-in-Original No. 12/2005 dated 24-5-2005, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who also upheld the Order-in-Original subject to modification of redemption fine and penalty. Hence this appeal. 3. The learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants are in terms of the price fixed by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas can be rejected and Revenue can proceed to adopt the value in terms of the relevant Section and Rules quoted supra? The appellants were having price mechanism for removal of goods, both to their depots and to their retail outlets. In a circumstance like this, the Tribunal in the cited judgment has specifically held that the transaction value cannot be arrived at by Section 4(1) (a) of Central Excise Rules. This plea has been specifically upheld in the case of Telco v. C.C.E. cited supra as well as in the case of Steel Complex Ltd. v. C.C.E. (supra). The Larger Bench in the case of Ispat Indus tries Ltd. v. CCE (supra) has also upheld the contention tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
