2018 (12) TMI 157

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The period of dispute is for the period from 01.09.2005 to 30.11.2006 and 16.03.2007 to 30.06.2007 and pertains to clearances made to M/s IBP Ltd.. M/s IBP Ltd. is a subsidiary of the appellant. The invoices issued by the appellant indicated two values - (i) "ZTVL", which is import parity price and (ii) "ZAVL", which is lower. The appellant paid the Central Excise duty adopting ZAVL for such clearance to M/s IBP. The Department was of the view that the Central Excise duty is required to be paid at ZTVL, since the transaction between IOCL and IBP are settled at ZTVL. On these lines, show-cause notices were issued which were decided by issuing of the impugned orders. The demand for duty stands confirmed along with interest and also penalty u....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the appellant to other OMCs like, HPCL, BPCL, the transactions have been settled at ZTVL. He also argued that when there are clearances to subsidiary as well as independent buyers, the Central Excise duty is required to be paid as per the clearance to independent buyers as held by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Ispat Industries Vs. Commr. of Central Excise reported in 2007 (209) ELT 185 (Tri.-LB). 6. In his rebuttal, the Representative of the Appellants, submitted that the decision of the Larger Bench cited by the Revenue, may not be applicable to the present case. It is his argument that the show-cause notice has made only one allegation that the appellant has recovered prices as per ZTVL from IBP, which is not suppo....