2005 (7) TMI 503

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t. Shri R.N. Viswanath, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. -  The issue involved in this appeal is whether duty is payable on the differential amount between the Actual Railway Freight (ARF) and the Notional Railway Freight (NRF) received by the appellants, M/s. HPCL from the Oil Co-ordination Committee (OCC). During the relevant period, the price of p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Therefore, he passed the impugned order confirming the duty demand of Rs. 6,17,71,434/-. Equal penalty under Section 11AC was imposed. Interest under 11AB was demanded. Further a penalty of Rs. 6.18 Crores was imposed on the appellants under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants strongly challenge the impugned order. 2. Shri G. Shivadass, learned Advocate appeared f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nvited our attention to the orders of the Commissioners of Visakhapatnam and Chennai wherein they have dropped the proceedings by holding that the subsidy on account of difference in freight cannot be included in the assessable value. 4. The learned SDR fairly conceded that the issue is covered by the Board Circular dated 18-9-2000. 5. We have gone through the records of the case c....