9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 416X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceived to/by an assessee or manufacturer (from independent buyer) constitutes the assessable value / transaction value for the purpose of levy of Central Excise duty - impugned order upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - E/928/2006-DB - Final Order No. 22945 / 2017 - Dated:- 5-12-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member Shri Kurian Thomas, Advocate For the Appellant Shri N. Jagadish, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per : V. Padmanabhan The present appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 342/2006 dated 31.05.2006. The dispute in the present case is about the assessable value to be adopted for demand of Central Excise Duty in the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed, the issue of the CBEC clarification in para 10.3 and has held that the CBEC circular does not have sufficient legal force and cannot be given any legal effect in view of the statutory provision. 5. Both sides agree that the similar issue for a different period pertaining to the appellant came up before the Tribunal in Appeal No. E/972/2006 which was decided vide Final Order No. 20925/2016 dated 06.10.2016 in which the Tribunal observed as follows: 10. The duty of Central Excise is charged on the transaction value as mentioned in Section 4(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Section 4(1) is reproduced below for reference: 4. Valuation of excisable goods for purposes of charging of duty of excise.- (1) Where under this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods by the assessee for delivery at the time and place of removal; (ii) The assessee and the buyer are not related; and (iii) Price is the sole consideration for sale. 10.1.2. In the present case, the transaction value would be the price, where above three elements/conditions are present or fulfilled. We find that above three elements are present in the case of the amount / the price paid by OMCs (other than the BPCL). The price which is charged by the appellant - KRL from the Oil Marketing Companies (other than the BPCL) is the price as per the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The price charged by the appellant - KRL from BPCL cannot be called as transaction value , when BPCL is related to the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed price is not the sole consideration; therefore, it is not the transaction value for the purpose of charging Central Excise duty. 10.3. The appellant submits that the Central Board of Excise Customs (C.B.E.C.) issued clarification Circulars saying that the subsidized price is to be taken as assessable value. However, when the provisions relating to valuation given in the Section 4(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are very clear, this submission of the appellants and the said CBEC Circulars do not have sufficient legal force and cannot be given any legal effect. 10.4. For our conclusions made above, we take support from the Hon ble Supreme Court s decisions in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II Vs. Super ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
