2003 (12) TMI 527 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the place of removal for excisable goods.
2. Determination of the point of sale and transfer of possession under Section 2(h) of the Act.

Analysis:

1. The case involved a dispute regarding the place of removal for excisable goods cleared by the appellant from their factory to a depot before reaching the final destination specified by the purchaser. The authorities proposed duty recovery based on the value of goods when cleared from the depot rather than when cleared from the factory. The Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision. The appellant argued that the goods were dispatched to the depot against specific orders from the purchasers, indicating a sale at the factory gate. However, the Tribunal noted that the relevant provision, Section 4(3)(c) of the Act, specified the place of removal as the factory or any other place where goods are deposited before removal, which in this case was the depot. The Tribunal concluded that there was no sale at the factory gate, as possession of the goods remained with the appellant until they were removed from the depot.

2. The second issue revolved around the interpretation of the sale and purchase under Section 2(h) of the Act concerning the transfer of possession of goods. The appellant contended that there was a sale at the factory gate based on the specific orders from purchasers and the goods being dispatched to the depot. However, the Tribunal analyzed the definition of sale under the Act, emphasizing that a sale involves the transfer of possession from one party to another in the ordinary course of trade or business. In this case, as the goods remained in the appellant's possession until removed from the depot, the Tribunal concluded that there was no sale at the factory gate. Therefore, the Tribunal found no grounds for interference and upheld the duty recovery based on the value of goods when cleared from the depot.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment clarified the interpretation of the place of removal for excisable goods and the requirements for a valid sale under the relevant provisions of the Act. The decision emphasized that the transfer of possession is a crucial element in determining the point of sale, and in this case, the sale did not occur at the factory gate but at the depot after the goods were cleared.