9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant PSU unit had removed goods to their sales outlets under Administrative Pricing Mechanism but revenue rejected the same and demand raised by applying Section 4(4)(b)(iii) of CEA,1944 and Section 4(1)(b)ibid in two distinct period for valuation purpose - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/650/2004-DB - 20728/2017 - Dated:- 5-5-2017 - Shri SS Garg, Judicial Member And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member Ms. Ezhilmathi, Jt. Commissioner(AR) for the appellant Ms. Neetu James, Advocate for the respondent. ORDER Per: SS GARG This appeal has been filed by the Department against the impugned order dt. 31/05/2004 passed by Commissioner(Appeals). 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 57,845/- is on account of the price at which the goods were sold by COCO. An amount of ₹ 1,59,544/- is on account of Order-in-original that new valuation provisions do not provide for deduction of transportation cost which is average and therefore the ratio of the case law in M/s. BPCL Vs. CCE [1999(108) ELT 402] is not applicable. It is also further held that at the time of introduction of new Section 4 based on transaction value, the Board issued elaborate instructions and stated that there should not be any material difference in the value of petroleum products after introduction of transaction value concept. Aggrieved by the 010, assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) and the Commissioner(Appeals) set asid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2012 dt. 17/7/2012] e. CCE, Siliguri Vs. BPCL [2010(255) ELT 568 (Tri. Kolkata)] f. Commissioner Vs. BPCL [2016(335) ELT A26 (SC)] g. CCE, Visakhapatnam Vs. BPCL [2014(299) ELT 237 (Tri. Bang)] 3.2. She further submitted that the COCO outlets are not place of removal. The definition of place of removal was amended to include depots only w.e.f. 14/05/2003 whereas the appellants have adopted the transaction value in terms of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act as all the conditions for adopting transaction value is fulfilled. She further submitted that the delivery charges being dealers' commission and transportation cost beyond the place of removal is not includible in the assessable value. 4. After considering the su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
