2018 (11) TMI 722

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... matter had been referred to the Larger Bench of the Tribunal. He submitted that the matter referred to the Larger Bench has since been decided and hence the appeal itself may be taken up for decision at an early date. Accordingly, with the concurrence of both sides, appeal is taken up for disposal. 2. The period of dispute in the present appeal is from 16.11.2004 to 28.02.2005. During the period, the Appellant, M/s I.O.C.L. cleared Superior Kerosene Oil (SKO) and Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) to other Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs.). The dispute is regarding the value to be adopted for payment of Central Excise duty for such transaction. The price at which the Appellant sold above two products to other OMCs, was higher and is known as "....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ral Excise Act, 1944 w.e.f.01.07.2000, refinery is required to discharge duty on transaction value, which is collected from OMCs.. 5. In his rebuttal, the ld. DGM (Finance) for the Appellant, attempted to distinguish the present case from the facts of the case decided by the Larger Bench. He submitted that in the present case, the clearances of the product were mainly to other OMCs, but in the case of ONGC decided by the Larger Bench, he submitted that ONGC engaged only in the extraction of oil and is not a part of any Subsidy Scheme of the Government and further ONGC is not an OMC. 6. We have heard both sides at length and perused the records. 7. The dispute in the present case is regarding valuation of SKO and LPG when cleared by....