Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore
Bpcl vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 15 September, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003ECR847(TRI.-BANGALORE), 2003(158)ELT361(TRI-BANG)
ORDER C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)
1. The common issue raised in this appeal is whether licence fee is to form part of the assessable value of petroleum products sold by the assessee.
2. Facts of the case are that appellants sell High Speed Diesel oil and Motor Spirit to their dealers at a fixed sale price. Appellants also own outlets for retail sale of the same. These are leased out to their dealers who sell Motor Spirit (MS) and High Speed Diesel (HSD) oil from these outlets. The lease charges depend upon the items under lease. No lease charge is levied from the buyers who are not lessees of appellants' outlets. The following table brings out the factual position :-
Motor Spirit (MS) High Speed Diesel (HSD) Company owned Outlet - All assets viz. Land, Building, Pumps and tanks Rs. 43/-
Rs. 36/-
Dealer Controlled Outlet - Only Tanks and pumps owned by Oil Company Rs. 13/-
Rs.11/-
Outlet where the Dealer leases the site /building/ tanks and pumps Nil Nil
3. The contention of the appellants is that licence fee is entirely related to lease of outlets and machinery installed therein and has no connection whatsoever with the sale of MS and HSD oil by the appellants to the dealers. They, therefore, contend that licence fee has no relevance to the pricing and assessment of MS and HSD oil. The appellants have relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of HPCL v. CCE, Hyderabad - 2002 (149) E.L.T. 1294 and the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Indian Oxygen v. CCE -1988 (36) E.L.T. 730 (S.C.)
4. We have pursued the records and considered the submissions made by both sides. It is clear from the facts of the case that leasing out of outlets and sale of MS and HSD oil are separate transactions between the appellants and their buyers of MS and HSD. This is clear from the fact that no licence fee is levied from the dealers who have not leased out the outlets of the appellants. In the circumstances, it has to be held that licence fee, which is for a different transaction and consideration than the sale of MS and HSD cannot form part of the assessable value of MS and HSD. The issue also is settled by the decisions relied on by the appellants.
5. In view of what is stated above, the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellants.