9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B. Nair, Member (T)]. Issue involved in this appeal is the valuation of Bitumen manufactured and sold by the appellants during the period March, 1994 to December, 1995. 2. The appellant is a public sector oil refinery and Bitumen sold by them was under the Administered Price Mechanism during the relevant period. The dispute is with reference to packed Bitumen sold in barrels. According to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resent duty demand on the ground that the price of drum used for packing is much higher than the price included in the basic ceiling selling prices. It is also stated that the appellant had taken Modvat credit on the value of the drums while only a part of the value of the drum remains included in the assessable value. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants during hearing that in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompanies from Oil Pool Account are not to be included to the assessable value of goods covered under Administered Price Mechanism. 4. A perusal of the record of this case makes it clear that the appellant had paid duty on the sale price realised by them. That sale price also included an element towards the cost of drum as permitted under the pricing formula. There is no allegation that the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom what has stated above, it is clear that the assessment as originally made in the instant case were at the correct assessable value. There was no short levy of duty. The demand made in the impugned order is, therefore, not justified. The same is set aside. As the demand of duty itself is not justified, there is no occasion to demand interest or impose penalty. They are also set aside. Thus, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
