News Update

Import Prohibition - Reference to the Patents Act, 1970 omitted from notification 51/2010-Cus(NT)Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 amendedImport of Milk and Milk Products from China - import prohibition extended till 23.12.2018I-T - Tax deducted at source on income of charitable trust cannot be treated as taxable income: ITATGST - Howrah Commissionerate detects Rs 43 Crore tax evasion through fake invoicesGeM - Transactions worth Rs 8700 Crore done in short time, says PMRanchi NCB seizes 400 kg ganja from truck in Bokaro Steel CityIndia to make Chabahar Port operation by 2019: GadkariST - For any inaction on part of Revenue to submit Final Verification Report, petitioners cannot be made to suffer - matter remanded to Settlement Commission: High CourtGST: A Frightening but Fascinating Future world…! – Part III (See 'TOG INSIGHT')I-T - Application of fund for benefit of earthquake victims and its communication to donee before stipulated date, is sufficient for charitable trust to avail benefit of exemption u/s 80G(5C): HCPanama Papers - Leak-I - Out of 426 only 76 cases found actionable: GovtST - Taxability is not determined by section 67 of Finance Act, 1994 but by coverage in section 65: CESTATCIC decides proceedings not to abate even if complainant diesGovt sets up Panel to update Voluntary Guidelines on Social, Environmental & Economic Responsibilities of Business12 lakh pax electric cars sold in 2017; up by 58% from 2016: UNCommerce Department to get new homeCentre invites views on draft CSR guidelinesCanada passes bill to legalise use of marijuana from Oct 17, 2018Govt appoints Mr M K Sinha as new Joint Secy - TRU-IIDrive Against Shell Companies - A cul-de-sac!Liquor licences: Undoubtedly Taxable before as well as after GST Roll outMCA invites comments on Draft on cross-border insolvencyCBDT notifies PFC & Railway Finance Corp 54EC Capital Gains Bonds
 
CX - Since procurement price is decided by an open tender procedure, it cannot be said that transaction value has been influenced : CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

BANGALORE, APRIL 20, 2017: DURING the disputed period, appellant effected sale of Poly Iso Butane (PIB) to various Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs) pursuant to competitive bidding procedure in which various suppliers including appellant took part.

The Department disputed the transaction value between appellant and BPCL on the ground that both are related parties as per Section 4 of the Act. After process of adjudication, Commissioner confirmed demand of differential excise duty along interest and penalty.

Appellant is before the CESTAT and challenges the impugned order on merits as well as revenue neutrality and limitation.  Following case laws are also cited in support viz. Bharti Telecom Ltd - 2008-TIOL-124-SC-CX and Universal Luggage Mfg. Co. Ltd - 2005-TIOL-152-SC-CX. Revenue is also in appeal seeking imposition of equivalent penalty u/s 11AC and relies on the apex court decision in Dharamendra Textile Processors: - 2008- TIOL -192-SC-CX-LB .

After considering the submissions made by both sides, the Bench observed-

+ The various public sector units including OMCs are mandated by the Central Vigilance Commissioner to adopt the open tender procedure for procurement of goods. Such procedure is mandated with the objective of transparency in procurement and the possibility of lowest price discovery by open competition. Since the price of procurement of PIB for supply to BPCL has been decided by such an open tender procedure, it cannot be said that the transaction value has been influenced by the relationship between KRL and BPCL.

+ Further, there are also instances where KRL has supplied the same product at lesser prices than that to BPCL. It is also noted that the price of the product is also volatile as in the case of most petroleum products whose prices are ultimately depending on the price of crude oil. In the above circumstances, it cannot be said that the price at which KRL has supplied to BPCL is a preferential price influenced because of the special relationship between KRL and BPCL.

+ Revenue has not brought on record any evidence to indicate that price is not the sole consideration for sale of product to BPCL .

+ Transaction value is acceptable during disputed period in respect of clearances made to BPCL.

The assessee appeal was allowed and the Revenue appeal was dismissed.

(See 2017-TIOL-1319-CESTAT-BANG)


POST YOUR COMMENTS