Per Justice K. Sreedharan:

Issues raised in all these appeals are identical. It is whether the ship's demurrage charges which were actually incurred by oil companies were includible in the assessable value of petroleum crude oil and other petroleum products like motor spirit, high speed diesel, superior kerosene oil, furnace oil and aviation turbine fuel Another issue as to whether the oil companies and their senior officials were guilty of suppression of payment of ship's demurrage charges with intent to evade duty and consequently liable to penalty under Section 114A or Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) also rises for consideration.

2. As stated earlier, all the appellants are Public Sector Undertakings. Aggrieved by the order of adjudication passed by the departmental authority, appeals have been filed before this Tribunal. The appellants thereupon approached Committee of Secretaries for clearance, in terms of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs. Collector of Central Excise, 1992 (61) ELT 3 as clarified by the decision reported in 1994 (1) RLT 53 (SC)=1994 (70) ELT 45. Committee on Disputes, which met on 17.8.2000, permitted Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. to pursue the appeal before this Tribunal stating:

"The Committee, having regard to the facts that the dispute involved mixed questions of law and fact and the amount involved was substantial, permitted India Oil Corporation Ltd. to pursue the appeal in CEGAT."

According to the minutes of the Committee, the issue regarding the includibility of the cost of demurrage charges and the related bank charges in determining the transaction value under Section 14 of the Act involved mixed questions of law and fact and so the matter has to be dealt with by the Tribunal and that the Committee cannot resolve the said issue. In this view, even though the Committee is ceased of the application seeking approval for pursuing the matter before the Tribunal, we consider it not necessary to await the actual grant of the permission because the Committee will not resolve the dispute involved in these cases by themselves. So, without delaying the matters awaiting the grant of permission by the Committee of Secretaries on Disputes, we proceed to dispose of all the appeals wherein the same issue as in the appeal where the Committee accorded permission arises.

3. In this order, we refer to the factual position that arises in appeal C/249/2000- A filed by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. The Committee on Disputes has accorded sanction for the prosecution of this appeal before this Tribunal. In this appeal, appellant filed stay application No. C/1234/2000-A praying for stay of operation of the order passed by the adjudicating authority. The appellant prayed for waiver of pre-deposit of the amount of duty claimed in the impugned order as a pre-condition for entertaining the appeal as well. When that petition came up for orders, we heard Shri Anil Divan, Senior Advocate representing the appellant and Shri M. Chandersekharan, Senior Advocate representing the Revenue. Learned counsel appearing on either side wanted the entire matter to be heard and the appeals disposed of finally. So, as agreed to by learned counsel appearing on either side, we heard them at length. We are disposing of all the appeals by this order as stated hereinbelow.

4. Appeal No. C/249/2000-A arises out of order-in-original No. 27/2000 Commr. dated 30.3.2000. The adjudication proceedings, which culminated in the said order, were initiated by notice issued under Section 124 read with Section 28(1) of the Act. That notice required the noticees to explain why demurrage charges which had to be paid on account of the detention of the vessel at the port beyond the period permitted should not be added to the assessable value. These charges, according to the notice, are pre-landing stage charges and are to form part of the assessable value. The noticees were to s