2013 (2) TMI 439 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation Transaction value - Place of removal - Section 4(4) of the Central Excise Act - Valuation of the petroleum products cleared from terminal points to company owned and company operated outlets - Oil companies were receiving Petroleum products from various refineries located at different places in India - under bond without payment of duty - at their terminal points and storing at the Terminal Points without payment of duty - They were clearing the products on payment of duty from the said place Held that - Following the decision in case of BPCL, IOCL and HPCL (2012 (12) TMI 471 - CESTAT, BANGALORE) that assessee were clearing the products on payment of duty from the said place. During that period, there is no basis to consider the COCO outlets as the place of removal prior to 14.05.2003. In favour of assessee

Summary

Issues: Valuation of petroleum products cleared from terminal points to company owned and company operated outlets (COCO outlets) between July 2001 to March 2002.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Valuation Dispute
The dispute in the appeals centered around the valuation of petroleum products cleared from terminal points to COCO outlets between July 2001 to March 2002. The appellant contended that the terminal point should be considered as the "place of removal," and the transaction value should be adopted, citing a previous Tribunal decision related to the same issue involving other parties. The Deputy Commissioner agreed that the facts in the present cases were identical to those in the previous decision.

Issue 2: Interpretation of "Place of Removal"
The Tribunal referred to the definition of "place of removal" under Section 4(4) of the Central Excise Act, both before and after 14.05.2003. Since the periods involved in the appeals were prior to 14.05.2003, the Tribunal emphasized that the relevant definition applicable was the one prevailing before that date. The Tribunal noted that during that period, the petroleum products were received at terminal points under bond without duty payment and then cleared on payment of duty from the same place. It was concluded that the COCO outlets could not be considered as the "place of removal" based on the prevailing circumstances and legal definitions.

Issue 3: Administrative Price Mechanism
The Tribunal also addressed the administrative price mechanism in place during part of the periods involved in the cases, which was dismantled from 1st April 2002. However, the Tribunal clarified that this mechanism did not impact the valuation issue at hand. It was highlighted that the sale prices from terminal points to dealers were based on the administrative price mechanism before 01.04.2002 and determined by the oil marketing companies themselves thereafter. The Tribunal found that since the price applicable to dealers at the terminal points was adopted for transfers to COCO outlets, the valuation was legal and proper.

Conclusion
Ultimately, the Tribunal, having considered the submissions and records, decided in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned orders and allowing the appeals with consequential relief as requested. The judgment clarified the interpretation of the "place of removal" in the context of the valuation of petroleum products and emphasized the importance of legal definitions and prevailing circumstances in determining such issues.

This detailed analysis provides a comprehensive understanding of the judgment, focusing on the key issues and the Tribunal's reasoning behind its decision.