9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sold to principal holding company, Rule 9 & 10 of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000 cannot be invoked and the prices of goods sold by the principal holding company to their dealer should not be adopted as transaction value - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/442, 443/2007 & E/CO/20, 21/2008 - 40989-40990/2017 - Dated:- 13-6-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial) And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri A. Cletus, ADC (AR), For the Appellant Shri R. Parthasarathy, Advocate, For the Respondent ORDER Per Bench These two appeals are filed by Revenue against OIO No.4 5/2007 dt. 30.03.2007. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Respondent (CPCL) is a refinery manufactu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ules, 2000. The Department wants differential duty between the RTP price and IOCL/IBP price. The impugned Order in Original dropped the proceedings on the findings that the products are not sold exclusively through holding company, and relied on the decision in the case of Aquamall Water Solutions Vs. CCE, Hyderabad [2005 (182) E.L.T. 196 (Tri.-Bang.)] and held that RTP represents the true transaction value. The rationale propounded by the Order-in-Original would hold good only for old Section 4 whereas under the new Section 4, Transaction Value for each removal is to be adopted. The new Section 4 recognizes multiple values based on each transaction. The Valuation under Rule 10 is most appropriate and CPCL should have adopted the sale p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03) ELT 533 (Tribunal)] iv. Ultra Refrigerators Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Delhi [2004 (170) ELT 341 (Tri.-Del.)] v. South Asia Tyres Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Aurangabad [2003 (152) ELT 434 (Tri.-Mum)] Ld. counsel also submits that the present appeal relies on CBEC circular dt. 1.7.2002 (Sl.No.2). However, this has been withdrawn vide circular dt. 25.11.2013. Consequently, the impugned order merits no interference. 7. Heard both sides and perused the records. The dispute is only with reference to clearances made by the respondent to oil marketing companies, viz. HPCL and BPCL who are independent and separate PSUs and are unrelated buyers. Consequently, their status is distinguishable from that of IOCL, who also is the holding compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
