I.B.P. CO. LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is a PSU unit. They are aggrieved with the OIA No. 187/98 dated 23.11.1998. The question before the Commissioner was as to whether: (a) the price of the petroleum products fixed by an Administrative order can be deemed to be the price fixed by another law under the provisions of Section 4(l)(a)(ii) of the Act; and (b) the so called other charges viz. State surcharge, Retail Pump Outlet Charges, RPO surcharge, Railway siding/shunting charges and Notional Railway freight charges collected by the appellants qualify for deduction from the sale price to determine the assessable value under Section 4 of the CE Act, 1944.

(2.) The Commissioner has noted that in terms of proviso (ii) to Section 4(1)(a) of CE Act, where such goods are sold by the assessee in the course of wholesale trade for delivery at the time and place of removal at a price fixed under any law for the time being in force or at a price, being the maximum, fixed under any law, then, notwithstanding anything contained in clause (iii) of the proviso, the price or the maximum price, as the case may be, so fixed, shall in relation to the goods so sold, be deemed to be a normal price thereof. He has noted that the appellants have failed to establish that the price fixed by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas is the normal price or the maximum price. He has noted that in the instant case, the appellants have not followed the procedure prescribed under Rule 173C of the CE Rules by claiming the so called other charges towards abatement from the wholesale price and got approved by the Department. He has noted that in the absence of any such claim any recoveries over and above the invoice value are deemed to be additional amounts recovered by the appellants behind the back of the department and, therefore, they are required to be added in the assessable value. He has noted that the sale prices is the aggregate of the declared sale price and should also include any other amount received under any other name or head. He has noted that otherwise, the argument of the appellant will legalise an artificial breakup in the price, more so when other charges received are not declared. He has noted that the appellants have admitted of having recovered 'other charges' over and above the price fixed by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. Hence, the contention of the appellants that the price fixed can be deemed to be the price fixed under any other law for the time being in force, cannot be accepted when they have admitted recovery of 'other charges'.

(3.) With regard to the deduction claimed on the second issue pertaining to State Surcharge, RPO sur -charges, Railway siding/shunting Charges, he has held that the same are required to be added in the assessable value.