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

....ellant. 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 marketing companies, namely, HPC, BPCL, IOCL ....

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 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 the judgment of the Larger Bench has been f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r 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 ascertainable in all cases whether a particular consignme....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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 of the argument. In addition, he also cites the ju....