TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 471
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., HPCL Ltd. Visakhapatnam and IOCL Ltd. Visakhapatnam' respectively as the respondents. 1.2. The above four appeals by the department are against the common Orders-in-Appeal No. 44 to 47/2006 dated 20.01.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Visakhapatnam. All these appeals involve substantially the same facts and issues and are accordingly dealt with by this common order. 2. Heard both sides extensively. 3.1. The relevant facts in Appeal Nos. E/915/2006 (period involved is July 2002 to March 2002), E/916/2006 (period involved July 2000 to March 2002) and E/57/2007 (period involved is July 2000 to October 2002) are identical and the same are as follows: (a) The Oil companies are receiv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sales to dealers while APM was in force was thus excluded. From 1-4-2002, the transaction value applicable in respect of dealers excluding delivery charges was adopted for payment of duty on the petroleum products transferred from terminal points to COCO outlets. (f) Original authority has held that the assessable value in respect of goods transferred from terminal points to COCO outlets and sold from there, should include the transportation/transfer charges and demanded differential duty and imposed penalties. (g) However, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the amounts representing the transportation/transfer charges could not be added to the assessable value and allowed the appeals prefer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to dealers in respect of transfers made to COCO outlets was in order. 5.2. In Appeal No. E/917/2006, it was submitted that it was not a case of transfer to COCO outlets but only a case of transfer to the buyer (a neighboring company) through the pipeline and the delivery charges involved should be treated only as transportation charges from the place of removal and therefore, there was no justification for including the same. 5.3. He relies on the following decisions in support of his contentions. (a) HPCL vs. CCE, Visakhapatnam Final Order No. 804/2010 dated 13.05.2010 of CESTAT, Bangalore (b) CCE, Siliguri vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. [2010 (255) E.L.T. 568 (Tri.-Kolkata)] &nbs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... any other place or premises wherein the excisable goods have been permitted to be deposited without [payment of duty;] (c) a depot, premises of a consignment agent or any other place or premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory; from where such goods are removed; 6.2. The periods involved in the three appeals E/915/2006, E/916/2006 and E/57/2007 are prior to 14.05.2003. Therefore, only the definition of "place of removal" under Section 4(4) of the Central Excise Act as it was prevailing prior to 14.05.2003 would be relevant. We have noted that the Oil companies were receiving Petroleum products from various refineries located at different pla....