TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 471X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty and sold from the said COCO outlets only on payment of duty. Therefore, there is no justification to treat the COCO outlets as the "place of removal" - "place of removal" is the factory gate and the sale has taken place at the factory gate and the delivery charges are in the nature of transportation charges for transporting the petroleum products through pipeline. The sale prices from the terminal points to the dealers were based on APM prior to 01.04.2002 (that is as determined by a different authority and adopted by the oil marketing companies) and from 01.04.2002 the same have been determined by the oil marketing companies themselves. For valuation purposes, it is immaterial as to whether the transaction value was based on APM or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ineries located at different places in India, under bond without payment of duty at their "terminal points". The petroleum products are, thus, stored at these Terminal Points without payment of duty. (b) The oil companies appoint dealers for sale of Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Oil. They also establish company owned company outlets (hereinafter referred as COCOs) as per oil Co-ordination Committee guidelines for sale of Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Oil. (c) These Petroleum products are cleared on payment of duty from the said "terminal points". The clearances at the Terminal Points are two-fold namely, sale to Dealers and clearances to COCO Outlets. (d) The prices of petroleum products to the dealers were deter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ochemicals Ltd. located-in the adjacent premises through pipeline. They have collected Rs.50/- per MT towards delivery charges. The original authority included the said amount in the assessable value and demanded differential duty and imposed penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the order of the original authority. 4. Learned Additional Commissioner (AR) and Deputy Commissioner (AR) who appeared for the appellant-department reiterated the findings and reasoning of the original authority and also the grounds of appeal. They contended that the COCO outlets from where the respondent companies were selling the petroleum products should be treated as "depot" and therefore as "place of removal". As a result, the amounts collected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . CCE, Cochin [2003 (160) E.L.T. 836 (Tri.- Bang.)] (f) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. CCE, Mangalore [2007 (207) E.L.T. 605 (Tri.-Bang.) affirmed in 2007 (213) E.L.T. A116 (SC)] (g) DCW Ltd. vs. CCE, Thirunelveli [2007 (217) E.L.T. 541 (Tri.-Chennai)]. 6.1. We have carefully considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records. It would be appropriate to reproduce the definitions of "place of removal" under Section 4(4) of the Central Excise Act as it was prevailing prior to 14.05.2003 and from 14.05.2003 which are as follows: Prior to 14.05.2003 "place of removal" means - (a) a factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacture of the excisable goods; (b) a war ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the said COCO outlets only on payment of duty. Therefore, there is no justification to treat the COCO outlets as the "place of removal". Even otherwise, the basis on which the COCO outlets are treated as depots cannot be appreciated. In common parlance, a depot is meant to be a place facilitating whole sale trade whereas the COCO outlets are obviously retail outlets. 6.3. The administrative price mechanism was in vogue for part of the periods involved in each of the three cases as the same was dismantled only from 1 st April 2002. However, this has no significance to the issue on hand. The sale prices from the terminal points to the dealers were based on APM prior to 01.04.2002 (that is as determined by a different authority and adop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
