2018 (2) TMI 1495 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - sale of petroleum products through dealers - appellant retains the benefit of discount/commission offered to the dealers - whether the appellant needs to be saddled with the additional duty liability in resection of the in petroleum products cleared to company owned and company operated (COCO) outlets during the period April 2002 to September 2004? Held that - It is undisputed that when the goods are cleared to outlets operated by the dealers, the assessable value is worked out by deducting the discounts/commission offered to the dealers - the appellant had discharged more excise duty on the clearances to and from COCO outlet, wherein the assessable value is more than the assessable value of the petroleum products cleared to dealers (certified by Chartered Accountants), which implies that the commission which has been extended to dealers has been included in the value. It can be assumed that the retention of dealers commission as challenged by the Revenue is already taken care of while discharging the duty liability on the higher assessable value on petroleum goods cleared to and from COCO outlets and cannot have effect of the exchequer, it can be seen that net excise duty paid on the net petroleum products cleared to COCO outlets is more than the duty paid on tine clearances to dealers outlets. Demand upheld - penalty not warranted - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant is liable for additional duty in relation to petroleum products cleared to company-owned and company-operated (COCO) outlets.
2. Whether the assessable value for goods cleared to COCO outlets was correctly determined.
3. Whether the differential duty liability for the period June 2002 to September 2004 should be upheld or set aside.

Issue 1: Liability for Additional Duty
The case revolved around the appellant's liability for additional duty concerning petroleum products cleared to COCO outlets. The Revenue argued that the appellant, operating COCO outlets, retained benefits offered to dealers, thus necessitating the discharge of differential Central excise duty. The appellant contested the demand, stating that the assessable value for goods cleared to COCO outlets was higher than for dealer-operated outlets. The adjudicating authority and the 1st Appellate Authority upheld the demand, leading to the appeal.

Issue 2: Correctness of Assessable Value
The appellant contended that they correctly paid duty on dealer's margin from June 2002 to September 2004. However, the authorities rejected this claim, stating that the documents provided were insufficient to prove the point. The reconciliation of assessable values between COCO and dealer outlets was presented, showing higher excise duty paid for COCO outlets, indicating inclusion of dealer's commission in the value.

Issue 3: Differential Duty Liability
Upon examination, it was found that the appellant had paid more excise duty on clearances to and from COCO outlets compared to dealer-operated outlets, as certified by Chartered Accountants. The Tribunal upheld the demand for April and May 2002 but set aside the demand for June 2002 to September 2004. Consequently, no penalty was imposed due to setting aside a significant portion of the demand.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the demand for duty liability for specific periods while setting aside others based on the assessment of assessable values and differential duty payments. The reconciliation of values and the inclusion of dealer's commission were crucial in determining the appellant's liability, resulting in the disposal of the appeal with no penalty imposed.