9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 1065 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - whether the petroleum products cleared from warehouse to COCOO are to be valued in terms of Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act 1944 read with Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules? - Held that - matter is squarely covered by the CESTAT Bangalore s decision in the case of CCE Viskahapatnam vs. BPCL 2012 (12) TMI 471 - CESTAT Bangalore where it was held that it is immaterial as to whether the transaction value was based on APM or self-determined by OCM. Since in respect of transfers to COCO outlets the price applicable to dealers at the place of removal (that is terminal points) has been adopted the same is legal and proper - appeal disposed off.
Issues:
1. Valuation of petroleum products cleared from warehouse to Company Owned Company Operated Outlets (COCOO) under Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules. 2. Applicability of Rule 7 to COCOO outlets as a place of removal. 3. Whether the demand is barred by limitation. Analysis: Issue 1: Valuation of petroleum products cleared to COCOO The dispute revolves around the valuation of petroleum products cleared from warehouse to COCOO outlets between March 1999 to November 2001. The appellant, M/s. HPCL, contests the liability of duty amounting to ?12,59,557 imposed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore. The contention is whether the goods are to be valued based on the price at which they were sold by COCOO outlets. The appellant argues that prior to July 1, 2000, clearances to COCOO were valued at the dealer price under the Administered Price Mechanism (APM). They rely on a Board Circular from June 30, 2000, which supports continuing the valuation practice for administered petroleum products. Additionally, the appellant asserts that Rule 7 is inapplicable as COCOO outlets do not qualify as a place of removal, citing amendments to the definition of 'place of removal' effective May 14, 2003. The appellant also refers to various cases where similar issues were decided in their favor. Issue 2: Applicability of Rule 7 to COCOO outlets The appellant argues that Rule 7, concerning valuation, does not apply to COCOO outlets as they do not constitute a place of removal. They highlight that the definition of 'place of removal' was amended to include depots only from May 14, 2003. The appellant contends that the transaction value under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act should be adopted as all conditions for its application are met. They further claim that delivery charges, considered as dealers' commission, and transportation costs beyond the place of removal should not be included in the assessable value. Issue 3: Limitation on the demand The appellant asserts that the entire demand is time-barred by limitation. The Revenue, represented by Shri N. Jagadish, maintains that the duty is payable based on the price charged by COCOO outlets as per Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules. However, the Tribunal finds that the matter is decisively settled by a previous decision of CESTAT, Bangalore, in a case involving CCE, Visakhapatnam vs. BPCL. The Tribunal refers to the definitions of 'place of removal' under Section 4(4) of the Central Excise Act, highlighting the relevant changes pre and post May 14, 2003. In conclusion, the Tribunal upholds the appellant's contentions, citing precedents and legal provisions to support their decision.
|
