9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... party. The demand of duty is in respect of Motor Spirit (MS) and High Speed Diesel oil (HSD oil) sold from the appellants' installation (warehouse) to dealers as also the products transferred from the warehouse to the appellants' own retail outlet (hereinafter referred to as "COCO" bunk). Of the aforesaid demand of duty, Rs.90.79 lakhs is on account of inclusion of delivery charges (equalized) in the assessable value of the goods sold to dealers from the warehouse. In respect of this part of the demand of duty, the appellants have made out prima facie case on the strength of the following decisions of the Tribunal :- (1) Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CCE, Cochin, 2003 (160) E.L.T. 836 (Tribunal) = 2003 (57) RLT 163 (CEGAT- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessable value is the same irrespective of whether the administered petroleum products are sold at the refineries or through the marketing companies." However, it is conceded that, after the abolition of the administered pricing mechanism (w.e.f. 1-4-2002), the assessable value of the petroleum products sold from the "COCO" bunk would be based on the transaction value. The amount of duty demanded on this count is said to be Rs. 4.83 lakhs. 2. Ld. SDR has contested the assessee's claim with regard to the demand of duty raised on the petroleum products sold at the "COCO" bunk during the period of dispute, particularly, prior to 1-4-2002. It is submitted that, the goods were stock-transferred from the warehouse to the "COCO" bunk and so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the assessment of petroleum products is concerned, upto 31-3-2002. But we have not found any specific provision of law supporting the view taken by the Board in the above circular. As regards the period after 31-3-2002, i.e., after the abolition of the administered pricing mechanism, apparently, the goods sold from "COCO" bunk owned by the company was just like goods sold by any other manufacturer from his retail outlet and we have not come across any provision of law conferring any privilege on this assessee in respect of the sale made by them from the "COCO" bunk. We have considered the time-bar plea also. After considering all the submissions in relation to the demand of duty of Rs. 46.67 lakhs, we direct the appellants t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
