9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 837X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue in both the appeals is identical both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order. The details of both the appeals are given below:- Appeal No. Assessee Period Involved Duty demanded OIA dt. E/595/2004 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 01/2002 to 3/2002 Rs.1,70,331/- 22/03/2004 E/785/2004 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 10/2001 to 02/2002 Rs.1,48,68/- 23/03/2004 2. For the sake of convenience, we have taken the facts from the appeal No.E/785/2004. Briefly, the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a PSU engaged in their business of refining of crude and marketing of various petroleum products thereof. They have installation at Mangalore wherein they have permission to receive and store ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ucts. They were also asked to show-cause as to why the retail price of the COCO should not be adopted in respect of the clearances to COCO instead of the price applicable to the other dealers. The adjudicating authority has demanded the duty of Rs. 32,03,783/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Out of this amount, an amount of Rs. 28,97,413/- is on account of FDZ charges and an amount of Rs. 1,48,169/- is on account of the price at which the goods were sold by COCO An amount of Rs. 1,58,202/- is on account of Inclusion of SSLF. The adjudicating authority vide the OIO held that new valuation provision did not provide for deduction of transportation cost which is average and therefore the ratio of the case law in M/s. BPCL Vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants submits that the issue is no more res integra and has been settled in favour of the appellants in the following cases:- a. BPCL Vs CCE Bangalore [2007(218) ELT 585 (Tri. Bang). further affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court-Commissioner Vs. BPCL [2016(335) ELT A26 (SC)] b. IOCL Vs. CCE, Hyderabad [2010(252) ELT 396 (Tri. Bang.)] c. CCE, Visakhapatnam Vs. BPCL & others Final Order No.387 to 390/2012 dt. 07/06/2012 d. IOCL Vs CCE, Mangalore [Final Order No.468-470/2012 dt. 17/7/2012] e. CCE, Siliguri Vs. BPCL [2010(255) ELT 568 (Tri. Kolkata)] f. Commissioner Vs. BPCL [2016(335) ELT A26 (SC)] g. CCE Visakhapatnam Vs. BPCL [2014(299) ELT 237 (Tri. Bang.)] 3.2 She further submitted that the COCO outlets are not place of remo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
