9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nction to demand duty from the appellants in case the price charged by them from M/s. IOCL is higher than the price of M/s. IOCL. - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/00326/2009 - Final Order No. 42063/2017 - Dated:- 12-9-2017 - Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S, Member (Judicial) and Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Shri R. Raghavan Ramabhadran, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) ORDER The appellants are aggrieved by order dated 20.03.2009 of Commissioner (LTU), Chennai. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of various petroleum products liable to Central Excise duty under Chapter 27 of Central Excise Tariff Act. They cleared the products on payment of dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the transaction is between related parties. The provisions of section 4(1)(a) is not applicable. Valuation of excisable goods are to be done as per section 4(1)(b) read with Valuation Rules. The original authority without examining even legal provisions held that the transaction value available for sale by the appellants to M/s. IOCL can be adopted for valuation. This is against the main provision of section 4(1)(a) and is not legally tenable. He referred to the decision of the Tribunal in their own case for earlier period on similar set of facts reported in 2004 (240) E.L.T. 372 (Tri. -Chennai). The further appeal filed by the Revenue before the Hon ble Supreme Court was dismissed keeping the question of law open. As such, the learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oleum Corporation Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam-l reported in 2005 (187) E.L.T. 479 (Tri.-Bang). On perusal of the same, we note that the Tribunal was examining the issue of valuation of product supplied by the appellants to other oil marketing companies. There is no issue to inter-connected companies in the said case. This issue was examined regarding their supply to oil marketing companies, which is based on import parity price as mandated by Government policy. The facts of the present case are different and that the appellants are not marketing HSD and are exclusively clearing the same to M/s. IOCL, which is one of the oil marketing companies, for further sale. Admittedly, the appellants are a subsidiary of M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
