2016 (10) TMI 1065

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Appellant Mr. N. Jagadish, AR For the Respondent JUDGEMENT Per : Ashok K. Arya 1. The appellant, M/s. HPCL is in appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 30.11.2004 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Bangalore, who upheld the Order-in-Original No.11/2004 dated 7.7.2004 passed by Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore. The Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore uphe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s follows: i.  Prior to 1.7.2000, the clearances to COCOO were valued at the dealer price governed by Administered Price Mechanism (APM), being the normal price. ii.  Board Circular dated 30.6.2000 clarifies that the valuation of price for administered petroleum products be continued to be made as per hitherto practice of assessment. iii.  Rule 7 is not applicable as the COCOO .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... adopting transaction value is fulfilled. vi.  The delivery charges (being dealers commission) and transportation cost beyond the place of removal are not includible in the assessable value. vii. Entire demand is barred by limitation. 4. The learned AR, Shri N. Jagadish on behalf of the Revenue inter alia reiterates the findings given by the lower Revenue authorities and further states .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X