TMI Blog1999 (10) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of these by this common judgment. 2.Applications seeking stay of operation of the orders impugned and for dispensing with the condition of predeposit for entertaining the appeals have also come up for orders. In some of the appeals pre-deposit applications have been ordered. On hearing the arguments on facts we are convinced that the appellants are to be directed to deposit any amount as pre-condition for maintaining their appeals. So those applications of the appellants to waive the pre-deposit are allowed. 3.IOC were clearing Liquified Petroleum Gas (for short LPG) from their Gujarat Refinery in bulk under stock transfer arrangement to their own bottling plants for ultimate sale to Domestic buyers after bottling. GAIL are, inter alia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e reason mentioned in the notices was that the appellants undervalued the goods by showing the lesser value fixed for packed quantity meant for domestic consumption. Since the removal was in bulk, the higher price fixed for it, ignoring the user to which it was meant, should be the basis for finding the assessable value. Appellants objected the proposed actions of the department contending that assessable value of LPG is the one fixed by OCC for "LPG packed domestic" for LPG cleared in bulk for domestic packing in cylinders as well. This contention did not find favour with the department. Consequently, the demands made in the notices were accepted by the adjudicating authorities by the orders impugned in these appeals. They are under challe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... salisation did not have any impact on the administered price either. The refixation of price pursuant to the rationalisation was on the basis of the end-user of LPG and not on the mode or form of its transfer. LPG in packed form had three prices on the basis of the user to which it is earmarked. Likewise, LPG in Bulk did not have one price. Consideration for its user was the basis for fixing three prices where the movement or removal was in bulk. Oil Co-ordination Committee revised the prices of LPG among other products to be effective from 3-7-1996. This refixation was as follows :- LPG Bulk LPG Packed Domestic Non-Dom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the law laid down by the Supreme Court in IDL Chemicals Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1997 (92) E.L.T. 289. 8.Learned Counsel Mr. Chandersekharan representing the Revenue advanced an argument that OCC fixed price for LPG depending on the nature or form in which it is removed and that price should decide the value for the purpose of imposing duty. LPG could be removed either in packed form or in bulk. In packed form it may be for domestic use or for non-domestic use. For both, different prices have been fixed. In the case of bulk movement another price is fixed and that should be the basis for assessment to duty. This argument is quite attractive; but on a closer scrutiny we find it difficult to accept the same. In packed form di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k for bottling. Thus, it is evident that the assessable value of LPG cleared in bulk by the appellants for bottling for domestic consumption should be assessed at the lower value fixed by OCC for that category. In this view, the decisions relied on by learned Counsel, namely, Dharamsi Morarji Chemical Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, 1996 (86) E.L.T. 538 (Tribunal), Krislon Texturiser Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 1989 (44) E.L.T. 448 (Bom.) and Varelli Weavers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 1996 (83) E.L.T. 255 (S.C.) are not of any assistance to him. They deal with entirely different set of circumstances. So, we are not discussing them in detail. 10.Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n this direction was seen to have been made in the instant case. 11.To crown all these, we were informed of the view expressed by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas on the issue now permitted to be agitated before CEGAT. By letter No. P 20029/18/98-PP, dated 6-4-1999, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas issued clarification on the points raised in these appeals to the appellants before us and other similar manufacturers of LPG. It reads : "When LPG is removed by the gas extraction plants i.e., ONGC, OIL GAIL as well as by the Petroleum refineries i.e., IOC, BPC, HPC, CRL, MRL and BRPL in bulk from either to their own bottling plants or to the bottling plants owned by any of the oil marketing companies, for the purpose of decl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
