TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 416
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....troleum Gas (LPG) (Domestic). The appellant adopted the price at which these products were sold by the marketing companies for payment of duty. This price was subsidized by the Government. On the other hand they charge an amount, which they raised at later stage, equivalent to Refinery Gate Price from the Oil Marketing Company, as the price of these goods. The Refinery Gate Price is much higher than the Ex-Storage Selling Price fixed for the products. Hence Revenue was of the view that the appellant had paid duty on subsidized price instead of paying duty on the Refinery Gate Price. This led to the proceedings resulting in the differential duty being confirmed against the appellant. Aggrieved by the decision, the present appeal has been fil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erence to their value, then, on each removal of the goods, such value shall - (a) in a case where the goods are sold by the assessee, for delivery at the time and place of the removal, the assessee and the buyer of the goods are not related and the price is the sole consideration for the sale, be the transaction value. .... .... . (b) in any other case, including the case where the goods are not sold, be the value determined in such manner as may be prescribed. [Explanation. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the price-cum-duty of the excisable goods sold by the assessee shall be the price actually paid to him for the goods sold and the money value of the additional consideration, if any, flowing directly....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 10.1.3. It is to be noted that the price being paid by the Oil Marketing Companies (other than BPCL) includes the terminal charges also. Therefore, for the purpose of Central Excise duty, the assessable value which is now called the transaction value [after the amendment made in Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by the Finance Act (with effect from 1.7.2000)] is the price that is charged by the KRL from OMCs for the subject goods. 10.2. The appellant s argument that the subsidized price should be taken as transaction value for charging Central Excise duty on the goods sold by the appellant to Oil Marketing Companies does not have sufficient force as the subsidized price, which has been charged by the Oil Marketing Companies ....