TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 1246
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Adv. For the Respondent : Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) ORDER The appellants are aggrieved by order dated 20.03.2009 of Commissioner (LTU), Chennai. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of various petroleum products liable to Central Excise duty under Chapter 27 of Central Excise Tariff Act. They cleared the products on payment of duty to M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (in short, "M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is that since their clearance is exclusively to a holding company and the transaction is between related party, the value cannot be determined in terms of main section 4(1)(a). The original authority in the impugned order concluded that the transaction value between the appellants and M/s. IOCL is available and as such, the same has to be considered for assessment. Accordingly, the differential d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s reported in 2004 (240) E.L.T. 372 (Tri. -Chennai). The further appeal filed by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dismissed keeping the question of law open. As such, the learned counsel prayed for setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal. 3. Authorised Representative for the Revenue Shri B. Balamurugan reiterated the findings of the original authority.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce charged by them from M/s. IOCL is higher than the price of M/s. IOCL. The Tribunal relied on various cases to arrive at the above conclusion. The said decision of the Tribunal was appealed against by the Revenue and the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal, though, it was observed on the facts and circumstances of the case, the question of law is left open. 2016 (342) E.L.....