TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 641X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the latter. A similar fee was collected by M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL, for short) from some of their dealers and the same was held to be not includible in the assessable value of the petroleum products supplied by M/s. HPCL to such dealers, by the Commissioner (Appeals), Mangalore. And the same was taken up by this Tribunal in the case of BPCL VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, COCHIN [ 2003 (9) TMI 168 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] where it was held that It is clear from the facts of the case that leasing out of outlets and sale of MS and HSD oil are separate transactions between the appellants and their buyers of MS and HSD. This is clear from the fact that no licence fee is levied from the dealers who have not lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant for the period from October, 1997 to December, 2002 and June 1, 2003 to July 31, 2003 to call SSLF, as to why the SSLF so recovered by the appellant is not includible in the assessable value for the purposes of levy of excise duty. 2.2 The matter was adjudicated and the demand of duty was confirmed. 2.3 Against the said order, the appellant is before us. 3. The ld.Counsel for the appellant, submits that in their own case as reported in 2007 (209) ELT 237 (Tri.-Chennai), this Tribunal held that the SSLF is not includable in the transaction value and the same was taken by this Tribunal in the case of BPCL Vs. Commissioner reported in 2003 (158) ELT 361 (Tri.-Bang.). Against the same, the appeal filed by the Revenue has been dismi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngalore (copy produced by learned Counsel). Learned SDR has acknowledged the said final order of the Tribunal. And the same was taken up by this Tribunal in the case of BPCL (supra), wherein it has been held as under : 4. . It is clear from the facts of the case that leasing out of outlets and sale of MS and HSD oil are separate transactions between the appellants and their buyers of MS and HSD. This is clear from the fact that no licence fee is levied from the dealers who have not leased out the outlets of the appellants. In the circumstances, it has to be held that licence fee, which is for a different transaction and consideration than the sale of MS and HSD cannot form part of the assessable value of MS and HSD. The is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
