2000 (12) TMI 169

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1. M/s. Exim (I) Oil Co. Ltd. 6,62,825.00   6,62,825.00   2. M/s. Saket Petroleum (P) Ltd. 4,19,572.00   4,19,572.00   3 Biecco Lawrie India Ltd. 3,43,046.00   3,43,046.00   4. M/s. Shaw Oils (P) Ltd 10,88,869.00   10,88,869.00   3.Ld. Adv.s Dr. Samir Chakraborty and Shri K.K. Banerjee appearing for the appellants submit that the demands in the present case have been confirmed against the appellants, who were high-sea sale buyers of oil from M/s. Indian Oil Corpn. on the ground that demurrage charges, bank charges and the ocean loss are required to be included in the assessable value of the superior kerosene oil imported by M/s. IOC. Dr. Chak....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... cannot be held to be price of the goods actually paid. Inasmuch as the bank charges are also in the similar nature, they should not be held as includible in the assessable value. 5.As regards the ocean loss it has been explained to us that the deduction claimed by the appellants are on account of the loss of the oil which might have occurred on account of spillage or evaporation or any other count. However, Dr. Chakraborty agrees that the payments are made to their sellers in respect of the entire quantity inclusive of the loss. 6.Shri K.K. Banerjee, appearing for some of the appellants adopted the arguments advanced by Dr. Chakraborty and also submitted that the demands in question were hopelessly barred by limitation. He drew our a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing in mind that it is the entire quantity inclusive of losses which is being purchased by the appellants from M/s. IOC and for which full payments are being made by the appellants to M/s. IOC we hold that such losses are not permissible deductions. 10.Apart from the merits of the case it has been strongly argued before us that the demands are barred by limitation. The Revenue department was aware of the practice of the issuance of two invoices by M/s. IOC, which practice was also debated upon by the various Commissionerates. As such it is the contention of the appellants that in view of the above admission of the adjudicating authority, the demands are required to be held as barred by limitation. However, it is seen that the Commissione....