9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 993X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction between the Refinery and the Marketing Division was not a sale. Just because the Terminalling Charges are shown separately in the stock-transferred invoices, it does not mean that central excise duty is payable on that charges. The final sale took place at the Marketing Division, on the Transaction value, which includes all charges incurred upto the Marketing Division, including the 'Terminalling Charges'. Hence, duty has been discharged by the Appellant on the transaction value, which includes the 'Terminalling Charges' also. No evidences has been brought on record by the Revenue to rebut the claim of the Appellant that the Terminalling Charges were included in the transaction value at which the petroleum produ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty at the Refinery Division against the stock transferred goods had been paid by them on the basis of greatest aggregate quantity of sales made from their Marketing Division (Sales Depot) on the previous day. Since the aforesaid petroleum products were not sold from their Refinery Division, the place where it was manufactured, the assessable value was determined on the basis of Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. Accordingly, the Department issued a Show cause Notice dated 06.10.2009, demanding central excise duty of Rs 53,51,256/- on these Terminalling Charges alleging that the transfer of petroleum products from the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferent units of the Company and such charges are shown to measure its profit at the relevant units. Hence, Terminalling Charges are shown separately in the invoices raised for stock transferred goods. They submitted that there cannot be any sale or purchase between the depots/marketing Division and the Refinery of the same Division. Accordingly, they contended that the demands confirmed in the impugned order not sustainable and liable to be set aside. 4. The Ld. A.R. for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Ld. Commissioner and submitted that when the Appellant sold the same petroleum products from their Refinery to other Oil Marketing Divisions like HPCL, BPCL etc., duty was discharged on Terminalling Charges , whereas, no duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. We find force in the argument of the Appellant. There cannot be any sale or purchase between the depots/marketing Division and the Refinery of the same Division. The transaction between the Refinery and the Marketing Division was not a sale. Just because the Terminalling Charges are shown separately in the stock-transferred invoices, it does not mean that central excise duty is payable on that charges. The final sale took place at the Marketing Division, on the Transaction value, which includes all charges incurred upto the Marketing Division, including the 'Terminalling Charges'. Hence, duty has been discharged by the Appellant on the transaction value, which includes the 'Terminalling Charges' also. No evidences has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
