2015 (10) TMI 1681

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent : Mr B Balamurugan, AC (AR) ORDER Per: R Periasami: The appellant has filed this appeal against order dated 22.9.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore.  2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are having warehouse at Coimbatore for storage of petroleum products and discharging central excise duty on the non-duty paid products received fro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal, in an identical issue, in a batch of Revenue appeals, in the case of CCE, Vishakapattinam Vs. BPCL, IOCL, HPCL dismissed the Revenue appeals and held in favour of the assessee vide Final Order No.387 to 390/2012 dated 7.6.2012. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced as under:- "6.2 The periods involved in the three appeals E/915/2006, E/916/2006 and E/57/2007 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... duty. Therefore, there is no justification to treat the COCO outlets as the  place of removal . Even otherwise, the basis on which the COCO outlets are treated as depots cannot be appreciated. In common parlance, a depot is meant to be a place facilitating whole sale trade whereas the COCO outlets are obviously retail outlets. 6.3 The administrative price mechanism was in vogue for part o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. As regards Appeal No. E/917/2006, we find that there is no COCO outlet involved. The  place of removal  is the factory gate and the sale has taken place at the factory gate and the delivery charges in the natural of transportation charges for transporting the petroleum products through pipeline. There is no valid reason to interfere with the order of th....