TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordingly, the issue was decided in favour of the Revenue. But we note that this decision has been distinguished by the Tribunal in the later decision in the appellant’s own case [2014 (8) TMI 220 - CESTAT MUMBAI]. In this decision, the Tribunal has held that Import Parity Price agreed between one OMC and another based on MoU reached between them, can be considered as transaction value for assessment purpose in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Thus, Import Parity Price agreed between one OMC and another based on MoU reached between them, can be considered as transaction value for assessment purpose in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Ex. Appeal No.59 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... troleum products at the price at which the same products were sold to independent buyers through IOC Depot/Dealer. On these lines, show-cause notice dated 30.11.2007 was issued to the appellant. After due process of adjudication, the impugned order was passed directing the appellant to discharge the differential Central Excise duty along with interest and penalty equal to the differential duty. This order is under challenge in the present proceedings. 3. The appellant is represented by Shri Chandan Kumar, ld.DGM (Finance) and Revenue is represented by Shri S. Mukhopadhyay, ld.D.R. 4. On behalf of the appellant, the following main arguments are advanced : (i) The value of petroleum products for clearance to other OMCs at Import Pari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al other cases tagged with the above appeal and in that connection, Board has issued a Circular No.913/03/2010-CX dated 03.02.2010 to direct the field formations to keep the show-cause notices issued on this subject in call book pending a final verdict from the Supreme Court. He submitted that the present matter may be kept pending till the outcome of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records. 7. As discussed above, the dispute in the present case, is regarding valuation of the petroleum products cleared by the appellant to other OMCs. by adopting Import Parity Price as the assessable value for payment of Central Excise duty. During the period under dispute, the appellant has paid Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the reasoning adopted is flawed as Import Parity Price is not an artificially fixed price. It is an actual price at the time and place of import which is also place for the sales effected by the Refinery or OMC to another OMC. To say that such a price is an artificially fixed notional value is completely contrary to facts. Import price cannot be influenced by the marketing companies situated in India. Therefore, there is a major flaw in the reasoning adopted in the order relied upon by the Revenue. On the contrary, in the orders relied upon by the learned Counsel, it has been clearly held that import price agreed between one OMC and another based on the MOU reached between them can be considered as a transaction value and such a finding wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
