9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1495X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owned and company operated (COCO) outlets during the period April 2002 to September 2004. It is the case of the Revenue that during the period in question, the appellant operated COCO outlets wherein the price of petroleum products remained the same to a retail customer as was in the case of petrol bunks operated by dealers. It is the case of the Revenue that appellant having self-operated COCO outlets, retains the benefit of discount/commission offered to the dealers hence on chat account they are required to discharge the differential Central excise duty. Show-cause notice was defended stating that the value adopted discharge of central excise duty in the case of COCO outlets is correct and the assessable value has been correctly arrived ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n-payment for the period April 2002 to June 2002, for which duty involved was Rs. 45,125/- [para 22 of the appellants grounds of appeal] 5. The Appellant's of payment of duty on dealer's margin from June 2002 to September 2004 was rejected by the adjudication authority at para 16 of the OIO No.5/2007 dated 17.02.2007. The assesses have produced the same sample invoice No.103262 dated 30.08.2002 and RT-12 return details for the month of Aug 2002. The adjudication authority on examination of the details produced arrived at the conclusion that the documents produced in support of their claim are not sufficient to prove their point. The same plea of the Appellant was rejected by the Commr(Appeals) at para - 8 of his Order-in-Appeal No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 31298.26 Reconciliation between COCO & Dealer Assessable Values Rs per KL MS COCO AV BED+SED AED Billing rate to COCO Sales Tax RSP 13207.87 1849.10 1000.00 16056.97 3103.81 19160.78 Delar AV BED+SED AED FDZ charges billing rate to Dealer Sales Tax Invoice total Dealer Commn RSP 12926.35 1809.69 1000.00 15.06 15751.10 3044.69 187955.79 365.00 19160.79 7. It can be seen from the above reproduced statements that the appellant had discharged more excise duty on the clearances to and from COCO outlet, wherein the assessable value is more than the assessable value of the petroleum products cleared to dealers (certified by Chartered Accountants), which implies that the commission which has been extended to d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
