Assessable value and storage loss disputes resolved in favour of the assessee where binding precedent and condonable loss limits applied.

Retail pump outlet charges were excluded from the assessable value of oil because the valuation issue was already settled by binding precedent approved by the Supreme Court. Duty on storage losses was also unsustainable because the Board's guidelines permitted condonation within the prescribed ceiling, and the evidence showed losses below 0.5% with no mala fide intent. The impugned order was set aside and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether retail pump outlet charges were includible in the assessable value of the oil. (ii) Whether duty could be confirmed on storage losses in excess of the permissible limit.

Issue (i): Whether retail pump outlet charges were includible in the assessable value of the oil.

Analysis: The issue had already been decided by the Tribunal in earlier proceedings and the view had been approved by the Supreme Court. The settled position governed the present appeal.

Conclusion: Retail pump outlet charges were not liable to be included in the assessable value.

Issue (ii): Whether duty could be confirmed on storage losses in excess of the permissible limit.

Analysis: The Board's guidelines permitted condonation of storage losses where the losses were within the prescribed ceiling and there was no mala fide intention. The evidence placed on record showed that the percentage loss during the relevant period remained below 0.5%, and there was no basis for sustaining the demand.

Conclusion: The duty demand on storage losses was not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside in full and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the valuation issue is already settled by binding precedent, and the evidence shows storage losses within the condonable ceiling, duty demand cannot be sustained on either count.

---