2018 (12) TMI 338

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....from 01.11.2006 to 15.03.2007. The Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs) entered into an arrangement for reciprocal supply of petroleum products between them. In terms of this arrangement, the petroleum products were cleared from M/s I.O.C.L. to other OMCs., on Import Parity Price as agreed between M/s IOCL and OMCs. The Department noticed that there was a disparity in the price at which such clearances were made to other OMCs and the price at which the same petroleum products were sold to independent buyers through IOCL's Depots/Dealers. In respect of latter clearances, the appellant discharged the Central Excise duty at the price at Depot on the date of clearance from the Refinery. However, since the price at which clearances were made to other ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unsel further submitted that the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal in the appellant's own case on identical issue as reported in 2014 (308) ELT 502 (Tri.-Mumbai) has distinguished the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.(supra) and has held that Import Parity Price agreed between one OMC and another based on MoU (Memorandum of Understanding) reached between them, can be considered as transaction value for assessment purpose under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (iii) Finally, he submitted that in view of the decision of the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal in IOCL case, the present issue may be decided in their favour. 5. The ld.D.R. for the Revenue justified the impugned order. He submit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....shed by the Tribunal in the later decision in the appellant's own case. In this decision, the Tribunal has held that Import Parity Price agreed between one OMC and another based on MoU reached between them, can be considered as transaction value for assessment purpose in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The observations of the Tribunal in the above case are reproduced below : "4.1 In particular, we have noted that in Para 19 of the BPCL case order relied upon by the Revenue, it has been held that IPP based price cannot be considered as transaction value as it was an artificially fixed notional value. In such an arrangement, price was definitely not the sole consideration for sale. It is based on this reasoning, it was he....