2008 (8) TMI 890

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Suriyanarayan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Sammer Chitkara, SDR, for the Respondent. ORDER Appellant M/s. ONGC is manufacturing and selling Superior Kerosene Oil (SKO) and Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG). The dispute is about the valuation of these two products governed under Administered Price Mechanism (APM) formulated by the Government of India. ONGC sells these products to oil mar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vernment. It is also not disputed that oil marketing companies are paying the additional amount which is over and above the assessable value fixed by the Govt. from the amount which they receive from the oil pool account or subsidy provided by the Government. 2. Learned advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that the decision of the Commissioner is not correct in view of the fact that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....04. The relevant para 3 of the above Circular is reproduced below for ready reference : "3. At present, the assessable value of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) varies depending upon whether the sale is to the domestic consumers or to industrial consumers. However, w.e.f. 6-9-2004, the duty on LPG is to be paid by the refineries at the time of clearance of LPG. Since it may not be ascertainab....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....marketing companies are paying for the SKO and LPG and there is no ground for differentiating that sale price into two categories, namely, assessable value and other value. According to him, the irrespective of the fact whether the oil marketing companies pay this amount out of their own resources or not is not relevant. He also cites the decision taken by the Commissioner in his order in support ....