TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 837X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue rejected the same and demand raised by applying Section 4(4)(b)(iii) of CEA,1944 and Section 4(1)(b)ibid in two distinct period for valuation purpose, Valuation of appellant accepted and demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/98/2004, E/97/2004, E/96/2004, E/261/2004-DB, E/785/2004-DB & E/595/2004-DB - 20722-20723/2017 , 20724-201727/2017 - Dated:- 4-5-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member Ms. Neethu James. Advocate for the appellants. Ms. Ezhilmathi, Jt. Commissioner(AR) for the Department, ORDER Per: S.S. GARG These two appeals have been filed by the appellants against the impugned order dt. 22/03/2004 and 23/03/2004 passed by Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ell as the retail price i.e. the price at which the retail dealers are to resell to the consumers. The dealer price is made up of the ex-storage point price, RPO charge, RPO surcharge, state specific costs, excise duty and sales tax. The retail price is fixed after adding the dealer commission (as fixed by the Government) to the dealer price OMCs do not carry retail trade, however have put up some outlets before handing it over to the dealers as selected by the Dealer Selection Board set up by Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. These outlets are an Intermediate activities before the same is handed over to new dealers. Accordingly, the invoicing for the deliveries to the COCO takes place at the retail price. The appellants collected Serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the OIO in respect of the demand of duty on FDZ charges and SSLF charges. But as regards the demand on account of value adopted at COCO RPO, the Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the OIO demand duty of ₹ 1,48,168/- along with interest under Section 11AB and directed the adjudicating authority to re-quantify the demand. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have filed this appeal. 3.1 Heard both parties and perused records. The issue involved in the present appeals is whether the petroleum products cleared from warehouse to company owned and company operated outlets are to be valued in terms of Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules. The case of the Department is tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t includible in the assessable value. 4. After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of the various decisions cited by the appellants, we are of the opinion that this issue has been settled in favour of the appellant by various decisions of the Tribunal specifically, in the case of BPCL [2007(218) ELT 585 (Tri. Bang.), which has been upheld by the Supreme Court reported in 2016(335) ELT A26 . Therefore by following the ratios of the above decisions, this Tribunal in the appellant's own case vide Order dt. 04/10/2016 has allowed the appeal of the appellant. Therefore we are of the considered opinion that the impugned orders are not sustainable in law and therefore we set aside the impugned order by allowing the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
