2013 (12) TMI 677 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation of petroleum products Pending appeal - Waiver of Pre-deposit Held that - The matter of the same assessee is pending before the Supreme Court - CBEC vide Circular F. No.6/21/2003-CX.1 (Pt.) dated 3.2.2010, stated that as the appeal of BPCL is pending before the Hon ble Supreme Court, the field formations are directed to consign all the pending show-cause notices on the issue to the call book pending a final verdict of the Hon ble Supreme Court - the order was passed before the issue of the Board s Circular Prima facie the appellant is having a strong case in their favour Pre-deposits waived till the disposal stay granted.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Valuation of petroleum products sold by oil company to other oil marketing companies (OMCs) from 1.6.2002 to 31.3.2004.

Analysis:
The applicant sought waiver of predeposit of duty amounting to Rs.8,28,03,702, penalty of Rs.1,57,02,477, and interest. The dispute centered around the valuation of petroleum products sold by the oil company to OMCs during the period mentioned. The Revenue rejected the transaction value and instead adopted the price at which OMCs sold to dealers.

Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal referred to a previous case involving Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. CCE, Nasik, where the Tribunal ruled against the assessee. Subsequently, the assessee appealed to the Supreme Court, which was still pending. Notably, a circular issued by CBEC directed pending show-cause notices related to the issue to be put on hold until a final verdict from the Supreme Court in the BPCL case. However, the impugned order in the present case was issued before the circular. The Tribunal also considered another case involving CCE Vs. Kochi Refineries Ltd., where the appeal on a similar issue was rejected. In light of these precedents, the Tribunal deemed the present case suitable for granting a waiver of the entire amount of duty, penalty, and interest. Consequently, the predeposit of duty, penalty, and interest were waived, and the recovery was stayed pending the appeal.

This judgment highlights the significance of legal precedents, the impact of circulars issued by regulatory bodies, and the Tribunal's discretion in granting waivers based on the merits of each case. The decision underscores the need for consistency in legal interpretations and the importance of considering relevant legal developments in determining the outcome of disputes related to taxation and valuation issues in the petroleum industry.