9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 641X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant Shri P. K. Ghosh , Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER Per Ashok Jindal : The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a Public Sector Undertaking and is engaged in marketing of petroleum products, namely, MS, HSD, which are sold to the RPO on principal to principal basis. In the course of its busine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.3 Against the said order, the appellant is before us. 3. The ld.Counsel for the appellant, submits that in their own case as reported in 2007 (209) ELT 237 (Tri.-Chennai), this Tribunal held that the SSLF is not includable in the transaction value and the same was taken by this Tribunal in the case of BPCL Vs. Commissioner reported in 2003 (158) ELT 361 (Tri.-Bang.). Against the same, the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the former for the benefit of the latter. A similar fee was collected by M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL, for short) from some of their dealers and the same was held to be not includible in the assessable value of the petroleum products supplied by M/s. HPCL to such dealers, by the Commissioner (Appeals), Mangalore in Order-in-Appeal No. 475/2003-C.E.; dated 23-12-2003, a cop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e fee is levied from the dealers who have not leased out the outlets of the appellants. In the circumstances, it has to be held that licence fee, which is for a different transaction and consideration than the sale of MS and HSD cannot form part of the assessable value of MS and HSD. The issue also is settled by the decisions relied on by the appellants." The said order has been affirmed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
