TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 1165
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Appellant is dispatched from its factory, in some cases via 'under-ground pipelines' and in some cases via 'automobile trucks'. In the instant case, the Appellant has cleared CNG from its factory located at RS No.70, Gollapudi Road, Vidyadharapuram, Near YV Rao Estates, Vijayawada, and has dispatched to its customer i.e., HPCL via 'automobile trucks'. 4. The trucks containing the CNG are moved to the retail stations operated by HPCL and over there, the CNG is moved from the trucks into the cascade tanks located at HPCL outlets. Thereafter, HPCL continues to store the CNG in its station and further effects sale of the CNG to the end-customers, i.e., the public. 5. In the back-drop, the Appellant has entered into an agreement dt.13.09.2005 with HPCL, which has been renewed from time to time for such sale of CNG to it. As per Clauses 2, 8 & 14, of the Agreement, the Appellant and HPCL have agreed that there is no relationship of agency between them, and that they are only working on a principal to principal basis; that the transfer of CNG from the Appellant to HPCL, constitutes sale of goods, for which the Appellant raises sale invoices duly charging State VAT from HPCL, and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rgin. Even otherwise, the Agreement must be read as a whole and not in isolation to suit one party or the other. A comprehensive study of the Agreement would show that there was no intention of agency. 11. The Appellate Authority has observed that there is no sale of CNG between the Appellant and HPCL when it is cleared at the factory gate, since the Appellant has installed equipment at HPCL's retail stations and they are also maintaining them in proper conditions and paying electricity charges as applicable. It was held that the relation between the parties is not on principal to principal basis, and what is paid to HPCL, is indeed commission. It was also held that the place of removal as per Sec 4 is the retail outlet. The Appellate Authority sustained the invocation of the extended period of limitation on the ground that the facts would not have come to light, but for verification of the records of the Appellant by the department and that there is a mis-declaration of facts with an intent to evade the payment of Central Excise duty and that the Appellant did not inform the Department about the activities such as installation of equipment and its maintenance at HPCL stations. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evenue before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Diary No. 21486/2017. The said Appeal stood dismissed by Order dt.02.02.2018. 13. Learned Counsel also relies on the ruling of Coordinate Bench in the case of Adani Gas Ltd vs CC, Ahmedabad being Final Order No.A/10685/2019 dt.16.04.2019. Under similar facts and circumstances, CNG was being sold by Adani Gas Ltd to OMC on payment of duty and VAT and discharged duty on the sale price to retail customers/outlets. The OMC in turn sold the CNG to retail customers on payment of VAT on their sale price. Since the sale price has to be kept uniform or regular at all sale outlets, Adani Gas Ltd granted trade margin/commission to the OMC to cover their expenses and profit margin. The Coordinate Bench at Ahmedabad had relied on the ruling of Mahanagar Gas Ltd (supra) and have been pleased to set aside the demand and allow the Appeal under similar facts and circumstances. Accordingly, learned Counsel prays for allowing their Appeal with consequential benefits. 14. Opposing the Appeal, learned AR for Revenue relies on the Impugned Order. He further refers to the facts that Appellant sells CNG to HPCL and thereafter, HPCL sells the same to retai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Authorised Representative. [ORDER PER: BENCH] This Misc Application for RoM is filed by Revenue arising out of Final Order No. A/30404/2023 dated 29.11.2023. 2. It is pointed out that in para 2 of the Final Order No. A/30404/2023 dated 29.11.2023 it is mentioned that the appellant is a PSU and is a Joint Venture between (i) Hindustan Petroleum Company Ltd (HPCL), (ii) GAIL (India) Ltd (GAIL), (iii) Kakinada Seaports Pvt Ltd (KSPL) and (iv) the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The Appellant manufactures Compressed Natural Gas (CNG). The Appellant was registered with the department and have discharged Central Excise duty for the period August 2005 to December 2009. 2.1 Learned Advocate for the appellant assessee agrees that there is a mistake of fact. Actually, the appellant company is a Joint Venture or Jointly promoted by the HPCL and GAIL. The other two parties namely i) Kakinada Sea Ports and ii) Government of Andhra Pradesh are simply shareholders or investors. 2.2 Accordingly, the 1st sentence of Para 2 of the Final Order No. A/30404/2023 dated 29.11.2023 is modified to be read as - "is a Joint Venture between HPCL and GAIL, and the Kakinada Sea Port....