9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1049X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered different transaction values for the price charged to different customers for assessment purpose, subject to the condition that such transactions are purely based on commercial consideration, buyer and seller are not related to each other and the price charged is the sole consideration for such sale at the time and place of delivery - no evidence is forthcoming that the discount offered by the appellants to BEST was in lieu of the infrastructural facilities extended to them. Hence, the transaction value should be considered as the price at which the CNG were supplied by the appellants to BEST and such price should be considered as the value for the purpose of assessment and discharge of central excise duty liability. The issue arising ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e outlets. In terms of the agreement dated 21.12.2006 as amended, the trade discount at different rates per kg. was offered on sale of CNG. The selling rate of CNG fixed for BEST is lesser than the selling rate of CNG sold from the appellant s outlets to other buyers. The modus operandi adopted by the appellants was interpreted by the Department that in the name of trade discount , such additional consideration was received by the appellants and since, other civil structures were provided by the buyer i.e., BEST free of cost, the value of such additional consideration shall be included in the assessable value in terms of Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 and as such, the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferent transaction values for the price charged to different customers for assessment purpose, subject to the condition that such transactions are purely based on commercial consideration, buyer and seller are not related to each other and the price charged is the sole consideration for such sale at the time and place of delivery. We find that the department had considered the price charged by the appellants to other customers as the transaction value for the supplies made to BEST. It is not the case of Revenue that the appellants got something more, over and above the agreed price for supply of the CNG to BEST. It is also not the case of Revenue that the appellants are related to BEST in any manner. Further, no evidence is forthcoming that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the said clause, the respondent entered into a separate agreement with BEST on 12th May 2008. Under the later agreement, the respondent was allowed to sale CNG to outside vehicles from the premises of BEST, however, on payment of a fixed fee of ₹ 35,000/- and variable fees of Rs.0.60 per kg of CNG sold. The revenue s contention is that the revise discount @0.70/- per kg of CNG passed during the period June 2009 to April 2010 to BEST is not admissible being an additional consideration received from BEST in lieu of facilities to dispense the CNG extended by BEST to the respondent. We do not find merit in the allegation of the Department in as much by the previous agreement dated 21.12.2006, both sides agreed that the respondent would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e nature of the alleged stated discount of Rs.0.70 per kg in these sales to the BEST was found to be actually a case of corresponding the back of the additional consideration, at least equivalent to the said amounts, in the form of the facilities extended under the agreement dated 21.12.2006, by the BEST to the appellants, free of cost . It appear from the reading of these lines that it has been implied that (i) BEST provided certain facilities for setting up CNG stations in their premises, (ii) as per agreement dated 21.12.2006, these were provided free of cost, (iii) however, actually for this, the appellants allowed a trade discount of Rs.0.70 per kg to BEST. It is not clear whether the respondent meant the giving of discount as a flow b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appears to be legitimate commercial transaction. We do not find any reason to interfere with the aforesaid finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) as in their appeal before this forum also, no contrary evidence has been placed by revenue. Consequently, the impugned Order is upheld and the revenue s appeal being devoid of merit, accordingly dismissed. 6. Further, on the similar issue in the case of the appellants, the Final order dated 24.08.2016 passed by the Tribunal was appealed against by Revenue before the Hon ble Supreme Court and the Civil Appeal was dismissed at the admission stage by the Hon ble Court vide judgement dated 03.11.2017. Thus, the issue arising out of the present dispute is not open for any further deliberation. 7. Theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
