Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Chennai vs M/S. Hpcl on 13 October, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
E/1009/2004 and E/CO/32/2005
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.99/2004 (M-I) dated 30.4.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai)
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President
Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for Publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether the Members wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
CCE, Chennai Appellant
Vs.
M/s. HPCL Respondent
Appearance Shri V.V. Hariharan, Jt. CDR, for the Appellant Shri S. Muthuvenkataraman, Advocate for the Respondent CORAM Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Date of Hearing: 13.10.2010 Date of Decision: 13.10.2010 Final Order No. ____________ Per Jyoti Balasundaram The appeal of the assessees against the confirmation of demand of over Rs. 16 lakhs on petroleum products viz. motor spirit and high speed diesel cleared to their company owned company operated outlets during the period 1.7.2000 to 31.3.2002 has been disposed of by the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) [against which the Revenue is in appeal] by directing the assessees to file a comprehensive representation before the Commissioner of Central Excise seeking appropriate relief in terms of Boards circular dated 30.6.2000. The circular itself casts a duty upon the Commissioner to examine the assessable value/assessment. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the impugned order containing such direction which is in accordance with the circular cited supra. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal. In this view of the matter, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy) (Jyoti Balasundaram)
Technical Member Vice President
Rex
??
??
??
??
2