TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1024X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/163/2008 - FO/76695/2018 - Dated:- 4-10-2018 - SHRI S. K. PATI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And SHRI V. PADMANABHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Bimalendu Biswas, GM (F) Hemant Karnani, Manager (F) for the Appellant (s) Shri A. Roy, Suptd. (A. R.) for the Revenue ORDER PER SHRI V. PADMANABHAN The present appeal is against the Order-in-Original No. 3/MP/Aykut/2007 dated 20/12/2007. 2. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Barauni Refinery, Barauni are engaged in the manufacture and clearance of various petroleum products and sell the same through Marketing Division to different buyers. The appellant sold goods to their retail outlets under Free Deliver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extraneous charges said to have been recovered by the appellant which are not the subject matter of the present Show Cause Notice. The only issue raised in the Show Cause Notice is recovery of amount @ ₹ 44 for delivery under FDZ. Since this issue stands decided in favour of the appellant, they submitted that the present appeal may be allowed. 6. The Ld. DR justified the impugned order. He submitted that the various amounts recovered are not in the form of transportation cost and hence, the same are required to be included in the assessable value. 7. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records very carefully. 8. The issue is regarding the valuation of Petroleum Products cleared from the refinery of appellant for sale. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner. Shri Bagaria states that according to Valuation Rules in force during the impugned period the actual cost of transportation/equalized freight is allowed to be deducted from the assessable value. The deduction claimed by the Appellants being only ₹ 44/- is much below the actual cost of ₹ 65/-. Hence he states that the amount of ₹ 44/- added by the Adjudicating Commissioner to arrive at the assessable value is not legal or correct. 3. We have heard the ld. DR who supports the order passed by the Lower Authority. 4. After hearing both sides and perusal of case record, we find that there is no clear finding by the Adjudicating Commissioner who has entertained doubts as to why the amount of ₹ 44 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
