Transaction value treated as real sale; supply to oil company held genuine sale and transaction-value valuation upheld.

The dispute concerned whether transfers of CNG to HPCL constituted a real sale attracting valuation under the transaction value principle or an agency transfer requiring valuation under agency valuation rules; the Tribunal analysed the agreement, invoicing, VAT discharge, absence of receipt of HPCL margins and contractual denials of agency, and applied coordinate-bench precedents treating identical arrangements as real sales. The Tribunal held that the arrangement was a genuine sale (use of the word "commission" not decisive), affirmed valuation under the transaction value principle, allowed the appeal and set aside the excise demand, limitation extension and penalty.

---

---

Issues: Whether the value for levy of central excise duty on CNG cleared by the appellant to HPCL is the transaction value at the factory gate under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (i.e., sale to HPCL treated as a real sale) or whether the relationship is agency/principal (requiring valuation under Section 4(1)(b) read with Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules, 2000), and whether earlier Tribunal precedents apply.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined the agreement between the parties, the invoicing and VAT discharge by the appellant, the contractual clauses denying agency, and the factual position that HPCL retained its own margin and did not remit such margin to the appellant. The Tribunal compared the facts with coordinate-bench precedents, notably Mahanagar Gas Ltd and Adani Gas Ltd, where identical arrangements were held to constitute real sales for purposes of Section 4(1)(a). The Tribunal found no material to show that the appellant actually received HPCL's margin or that the arrangement was agency in substance; use of the word "commission" in the agreement did not conclusively establish agency. The Tribunal also declined to reopen the core valuation issue in the Review/RoM beyond permissible scope and made limited factual corrections to the order regarding the joint-venture composition and the characterization of retail price as "mutually agreed" rather than "administered".

Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the transaction between the appellant and HPCL is a real sale and the transaction value at the time of clearance to HPCL falls under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944; the appeal is allowed and the impugned demand, extended limitation invocation and penalty are set aside in accordance with law, with consequential benefits to the appellant.

---