9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 907X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r dated 30-6-2000 cited by counsel. The amended Section 4(l)(a) lays down that the assessable value for payment of duty of excise shall be the transaction value in a case where the goods are sold by the assessee for delivery at the time and place of removal, the assessee and the buyer of goods are not related and the price is the sole consideration for the sale. This provision of law makes it clear that, for the transaction value (as defined supra) to be reckoned as the assessable value, there are three conditions to be satisfied viz. (i) sale of the goods by the assessee for delivery at the time and place of removal, (ii) the assessee and the buyer not to be related, (iii) the price to be the sole consideration for the sale. In the present case, admittedly, the appellant satisfied all these conditions and, therefore, the assessable value of LPG which was sold in bulk, ex-refinery, to the OMCs should be its transaction value as defined under the new Section 4(3)(d). There was a feeble suggestion at the bar that the difference between ex-refinery price recovered by ONGC from their buyers (OMCs) and the ex-storage price (APM price) on which duty was paid by ONGC be reckoned as a subs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... June, 2002 to December, 2004. The appellant sold the goods to the OMCs at a price which was referred to as Import Parity Price and the OMCs sold the same, after bottling in cylinders, to their dealers at a price fixed, under a scheme called Administered Price Mechanism (APM), by the Oil Co-ordination Committee under the Ministry of Petroleum, Government of India, and the dealers, in turn, supplied the goods in cylinders at the same APM price to domestic consumers. The clearance of LPG (domestic) in bulk from the refinery to the OMCs were effected under cover of Central Excise invoices (issued under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002) and on payment of duty on the APM price which was shown as the assessable value in such invoices. In respect of these sales, however, the appellant collected the higher price (net of statutory levies and admissible deductions like freight and insurance), namely, import parity price (IPP) from the OMCs by issuing commercial invoices. On a perusal of the Central Excise invoices issued under Rule 11 ibid, the department found the appellant to have certified in each invoice as follows: CERTIFIED THAT THE PARTICULARS GIVEN ABOVE ARE TRUE AND CORRECT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e argued that the show-cause notices were contrary to the CBEC s circulars and hence ab initio bad in law. In this connection, Shri Hidayatullah referred to a few decisions of the Supreme Court on the binding effect of clarificatory circulars, tariff advices etc. issued by CBEC, such as : Ranadey Micronutrients v. Collector, 1996 (87) E.L.T. 19 (S.C.) Collector v. Jayant Dalal Pvt. Ltd., 1996 (88) E.L.T. 638 (S.C.). 4. The learned counsel, further, referred to a plethora of decisions of the Tribunal and claimed that the valuation issue was no longer res integra. The following are the cited decisions : (i) Gas Authority of India Ltd. v. Commissioner, 2001 (130) E.L.T. 322 (Tri.-LB); (ii) HPCL v. Commissioner, 2003 (162) E.L.T. 391 (Tri.-Mum.); (iii) HPCL v. Commissioner, 2005 (187) E.L.T. 479 (Tri.-Bang.); (iv) HPCL v. Commissioner, 2005 (190) E.L.T. 140 (Tri.-Bang.); (v) BPCL v. Commissioner, 2005 (191) E.L.T. 1128 (Tri.-Bang.); (vi) IOCL v. Commissioner, 2007 (210) E.L.T. 543 (Tri.-Bang.); (vii) Mangalore Refinery Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner, Final Order No. 1893/2006 dt. 10-11-2006 in Appeal No. E/647/06, reported in 2007 (78) RLT 508 (CESTAT-Bang.) (viii) Reliance Indust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pointed out that there was nothing to indicate that ONGC was receiving from the OMCs a price higher than the price at which LPG in cylinders was sold by the OMCs. In the present case, admittedly, the appellant was selling their product to the OMCs at a price higher than the APM price at which the latter sold the goods in cylinders. In HPCLs cases reported in 2003 (162) E.L.T. 391 and 2007 (ECR) 399, the issue was all about recovery of duty under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act and was different from the issue involved in the present case. In HPCLs case reported in 2005 (190) E.L.T. 140 and in RILs case, the question considered by the Tribunal was whether the subsidy received from the Government by these manufacturers was includible as additional consideration in the assessable value of the products sold at APM price. In HPCLs case reported in 2005 (187) E.L.T. 479 and in BPCLs case reported in 2005 (191) E.L.T. 1128, the issue was whether the transaction value of the goods sold to other OMCs was to be rejected on the basis of the higher price at which identical goods were sold to dealers. The learned JCDR, thus, sought to distinguish the case on hand from the cases cited by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the form of import parity price which was actually realized by ONGC from the OMCs for LPG sold in bulk (domestic). The law which was in force during the period relevant to MRPL case demanded assessment of duty on transaction value defined under Section 4(3)(d) of the Act. The learned JCDR argued that, on this issue, the apex court s order passed sub silentio and, therefore, it was not a precedent to be followed in the present case. The learned JCDR claimed support from Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur [1989] 1 SCC 101 in the context of invoking the rule of sub silentio. In this connection, he also referred to Collector v. Surgichem, 1987 (27) E.L.T. 548 (Tribunal) and the Apex Court s judgment dated 16-2-2001 in Civil Appeal No. 6459 of 1998 [A-ONE Granites v. State of U.P. others]. In MRPL case, the department had specifically pleaded in their Civil Appeal that the concept of transaction value had been brought into effect on 1-7-2000 replacing the concept of normal (deemed) value through an amendment of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. The department had also pleaded that, as per the amended provisions of Section 4, duty of excise was chargeable on the transact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inted out that, in the case of Commissioner v. Grasim Industries Ltd., 2009 (241) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.), a Division Bench of the Apex Court had referred the question to a Larger Bench. 8. We have given careful consideration to all the submissions. To recapitulate a few essential facts:- The goods in question is LPG sold and cleared in bulk by ONGC from their refinery to OMCs during the period, June, 2002 to December, 2004. The buyers bottled the commodity in cylinders and sold the same to domestic consumers through dealers at APM price which was the ex-storage price fixed by OCC, Ministry of Petroleum, Government of India. It was on the basis of this price that ONGC paid CE duty on LPG cleared in bulk to the OMCs under cover of CE invoices. ONGC, however, collected from the OMCs a higher price by issuing commercial invoices in respect of the same goods. The OMCs received compensation [difference between the ex-refinery price paid to ONGC and the ex-storage price (APM price) collected from dealers] from the Oil Pool Account maintained by the Ministry of Petroleum. ONGC did not receive any subsidy or compensation from the Government. The issue agitated before us is whether ONGC was liabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion for, advertising or publicity, marketing and selling organization expenses, storage, outward handling, servicing, warranty, commission or any other matter, but does not include the amount of duty of excise, sales tax and other taxes, if any, actually paid or actually payable on such goods. The amended Section 4(l)(a) lays down that the assessable value for payment of duty of excise shall be the transaction value in a case where the goods are sold by the assessee for delivery at the time and place of removal, the assessee and the buyer of goods are not related and the price is the sole consideration for the sale. This provision of law makes it clear that, for the transaction value (as defined supra) to be reckoned as the assessable value, there are three conditions to be satisfied viz. (i) sale of the goods by the assessee for delivery at the time and place of removal, (ii) the assessee and the buyer not to be related, (iii) the price to be the sole consideration for the sale. In the present case, admittedly, the appellant satisfied all these conditions and, therefore, the assessable value of LPG which was sold in bulk, ex-refinery, to the OMCs should be its transaction value as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nies had sold the SKO (PDS-Public Distribution Scheme) and LPG (Domestic) under a subsidized price to the consumer as fixed by the Government. It is further submitted that the Assessee had not received any compensation from the Oil Pool Account. They were recovering the entire transaction value from the Oil Marketing Company. It is respectfully submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that when the assessee M/s. MRPL were receiving the full compensation value from their buyers, at the time of clearance from their factory gate, the same should be the Assessable Value for payment of duty in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It is therefore respectfully submitted that for the clearances effected directly from the Refineries on or after 6-9-04, the transaction value should be the criteria for payment of duty and accordingly, the demand confirmed by the Commissioner in the impugned Order-in-Original was legally correct and appropriate. It is respectfully submitted that by Finance Act, 2000, a new Section 4 had been brought in with effect from 1-7-2000 according to which concept of Assessable Value had been replaced with that of Transaction Value . As per the ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r to be strictly in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 4, the Department filed a Civil Appeal in the Supreme Court, after obtaining the clearance from the Committee on Disputes and also after obtaining the opinion of the learned Attorney General. The Hon ble Supreme Court, however, during the course of hearing, desired that the matter should be resolved by the two Departments i.e. Department of Revenue and Ministry of Petroleum. The matter was accordingly recently discussed first in the Board and thereafter in a meeting held between the representatives of Department of Revenue and Department of Petroleum Natural Gas. The various aspects of the dispute were examined and it was inter alia noted that the product was being marketed under administered price regime and the producers/marketing oil companies had no choice but to sell the products at prices fixed by OCC. It was also a fact that LPG whether it was cleared in packed condition from refinery or when packed in an outside bottling unit, was sold at same price to consumers as fixed by OCC. It was felt, therefore, that it may not be appropriate to insist on Supreme Court s ruling as to whether as per Section 4 higher value (and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rade for delivery at the time and place of removal at a price fixed under any law for the time being in force or at a price, being the maximum, fixed under any such law, then, not withstanding anything contained in clause (iii) of this proviso, the price or the maximum price, as the case may be, so fixed, shall, in relation to the goods so sold, be deemed to be normal price thereof; (underlining added) The APM price fixed by OCC and considered by the Tribunal in GAIL s case was seemingly covered by the above proviso to the erstwhile Section 4(1)(a) of the Act. In other words, under the pre-1-7-2000 provisions of Section 4, there was room for accommodating APM price as assessable value. The issue dealt with by the Tribunal in the above case and discussed by the Board in the above Circular should be viewed in this perspective. In the regime of transaction value , post-1-7-2000, there is no question of deeming the value of excisable goods and that is why provisions like what was contained in the aforesaid proviso to the erstwhile Section 4(l)(a) are conspicuously absent in the amended Section 4 of the Act. Therefore, in our view, the Board s Circular, which did not deal with any valua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the transaction value as per the law made by Parliament or the lower price fixed by Executive for LPG (packed) meant for domestic consumption - was not argued before, or considered by, the court. It, therefore, passed sub silentio as rightly submitted by the learned JCDR. We also note that the rule of sub silentio was applied in the cases of Surgichem (supra) and A-ONE Granites (supra). In the case of A-ONE Granites, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that a judgment which passed sub silentio was not a binding authority on the point under Article 141 of the Constitution. We quote from the said case :- Precedents sub silentio and without argument are of no moment. This rule has ever since been followed. In State of UP. Anr. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. Anr., (1991) 4 SCC 139, reiterating the same view, this Court laid down that such a decision cannot be deemed to be a law declared to have binding effect as is contemplated by Article 141 of the Constitution of India and observed thus : A decision which is not express and is not founded on reasons nor it proceeds on consideration of issue cannot be deemed to be a law declared to have a binding effect as is contemplated by Artic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper. The significant factual difference between the present case and the cases of GAIL, HPCL, BPCL and IOCL referred to by the learned Advocate is that, in the instant case, the assessee did not receive any compensation or subsidy from the Oil Pool Account and they recovered ex-refinery price from the buyers (OMCs) by issuing them commercial invoices in respect of LPG (bulk) on which duty was paid on a lesser value (APM price) under statutory invoices. On account of this factual difference, the decisions rendered by Co-ordinate Benches in different Oil Companies cases cited by the learned counsel cannot be followed by us in deciding the present case. We have not found anything in Halsbury s Laws of England to be in support of the learned counsel in this context. 8.7 There was a feeble suggestion at the bar that the difference between ex-refinery price recovered by ONGC from their buyers (OMCs) and the ex-storage price (APM price) on which duty was paid by ONGC be reckoned as a subsidy paid by the Government to ONGC through the OMCs. This plea is not supported by d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
