9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 568X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, Bangalore upheld the liability of demand of duty of Rs. 12,59,557/- saying that the appellant is required to pay duty for the goods at the price on which the same were sold by their Company Owned Company Operated Outlets [COCOO] for the relevant period. The period of dispute is March 1999 to November 2001 and the issue is whether the petroleum products cleared from warehouse to COCOO are to be valued in terms of Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules. 2. The appellant has been represented by the learned advocate, Shri G. Shivadass and the Revenue has been represented by learned AR, Shri N. Jagadish. 3. The learned advocate, Shri G. Shivadass, for the appellant based on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh on behalf of the Revenue inter alia reiterates the findings given by the lower Revenue authorities and further states that the duty is payable at the price being charged by COCOO in terms of Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules. 5. We have carefully considered the facts of the case along with submissions of both sides and the case laws cited. 6. We find that matter is squarely covered by the CESTAT, Bangalore s decision in the case of CCE, Viskahapatnam vs. BPCL vide Final Order No.387-390/2012 dated 7.6.2012. The CESTAT in its order dated 7.6.2012 inter alia states as under: "6.1 .................. It would be appropriate to reproduce the definitions of place of remov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty from the said place. During that period, there is no basis to consider the COCO Outlets as the place of removal . It is not the case of the department that the petroleum products were received in COCO outlets without payment of duty and sold from the said COCO outlets only on payment of duty and sold from the said COCO outlets only on payment of duty. Therefore, there is no justification to treat the COCO outlets as the place of removal . Even otherwise, the basis on which the COCO outlets are treated as depots cannot be appreciated. In common parlance, a depot is meant to be a place facilitating whole sale trade whereas the COCO outlets are obviously retail outlets. 6.3 The administrative price mechanism was in vogue for part of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payable on ex-terminal price and not on the price charged by the COCO outlets from the retail buyers. 6.1 CESTAT, Kolkata in the case CCE vs. BPCL (supra) has also decided in favour of the assessee to hold that valuation based at the time of removal of petroleum products from installation is only material for changing duty of Central Excise, subsequent sale from COCO being immaterial. CESTAT, Kolkata in its decision in Para 6 inter alia observes as under: "6. We have carefully considered the submissions from both sides and perused the Grounds of Appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dealt with the issues under the three categories for the three different periods, as mentioned by the learned Advocate for the Respondents. The factual basi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
