9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 1065X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules? - Held that: - matter is squarely covered by the CESTAT, Bangalores decision in the case of CCE, Viskahapatnam vs. BPCL [2012 (12) TMI 471 - CESTAT, Bangalore], where it was held that it is immaterial as to whether the transaction value was based on APM or self-determined by OCM. Since in respect of transfers to COCO outl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y 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 Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2003. iv. Issue has been settled in favour of the appellant in the following cases. a. BPCL vs. CCE, Bangalore: 2007 (218) ELT 585 (Tri.-bang.) b. IOCL vs. CCE, Hyderabad: 2010 (252) ELT 396 (Tri.-Bang.) c. CCE, Visakhapatnam vs. BPCL & Others vide Final Order No.387 to 390/2012 dated 7.6.2012 d. IOCL vs. CCE, Mangalore vide Final Order No.468-470/2012 dated 17.7.2012. e. CCE, Siliguri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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, Bangalores 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
