2017 (8) TMI 15

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es, Advocate for the respondent. ORDER Per: SS GARG This appeal has been filed by the Department against the impugned order dt. 31/05/2004 passed by Commissioner(Appeals). 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the respondent IS engaged in the business of refining of crude and marketing of various petroleum products. They have installation at Mangalore where they receive indigenous ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s for inclusion of FDZ charges and LF in the assessable value of their products. They were also asked to show-cause as to why the retail price of the COCO should not be adopted in respect of the clearances to COCO instead of the price applicable to the other dealers. The adjudicating authority after following the due process of law, had demanded the duty of Rs. 17,83,390/- under Section 11A of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....issioner(Appeals) and the Commissioner(Appeals) set aside the OIO in respect of the demand of duty on FDZ charges and SSLF charges by holding that the same are not includible in the assessable value and upheld the Order-in-Original with regard to COCO. Revenue has filed the appeal regarding the setting aside the demand of duty relating to FDZ charges and SSLF charges. 3.1. Heard both parties and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....[2007(218) ELT 585 (Tri. Bang.). further affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court-Commissioner Vs. BPCL [2016(335) ELT A26 (SC)] b. IOCL Vs. CCE, Hyderabad [2010(252) ELT 396 (Tri. Bang.)] c. CCE, Visakhapatnam Vs. BPCL & others Final Order No.387 to 390/2012 dt. 07/06/2012 d. IOCL Vs. CCE, Mangalore [Final Order No.468-470/2012 dt. 17/7/2012] e. CCE, Siliguri Vs. BPCL [2010(255) ELT 568 (Tri....