9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (12) TMI 442X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as under : The appellants are manufacturing Sodium Tripoly Phosphate (STPP) in its factory situated at Haldia. The appellants are selling the said product from their factory gate to independent wholesale buyers at a uniform price. The assessable value in this case was being determined on the basis of uniform wholesale ex-factory price. Apart from that, the appellants are also clearing the goods to their own depots/consignment agents, situated at different places. For the purposes of assessable value in respect of the goods sold through the depots/consignment agents, the cost of transportation was being added to the ex-factory price and the assessable value was being determined accordingly in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion is applicable only if the goods are removed to a depot or premises of the consignment agents or any other place from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory (emphasis supplied). He submits that in the present case, the goods were manufactured on job work basis and were being cleared to Hindustan Lever Ltd., who were using the same captively in their own manufacturing activities. They were not further selling the goods, so as to extend the place of removal to their premises. He submits that the Commissioner s observations that the factum of further sale or consumption by Hindustan Lever Ltd. is irrelevant are against the express provisions of the above section. He submits that enhancement of ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri Bagaria also submitted that the demand in question is barred by limitation inasmuch as the show cause notice for the period October, 1996 to August, 1998 was issued on 26-2-99. Drawing our attention to the various documents, he submits that the entire facts of the case i.e. the goods being manufactured on job work basis and being cleared to M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. by adopting the same assessable value at which the identical goods were being cleared to independent wholesale buyers and the factum of M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. being the appellant s holding Company was in the knowledge of the Department. As such, there was no suppression or mis-statement of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. The only reasons adopted by the Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants are admittedly adding the freight expenses in cost of selling made through their depots or their premises of consignment agents. However, the dispute in the present appeal is in respect of the goods manufactured out of the raw materials supplied by M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. The appellants are handing over the goods so manufactured to M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. at their own factory gate. It is M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. who are incurring the freight expenses in transportation of the goods from the appellants factory to their factory at Calcutta. In the circumstances, as rightly pointed out by the ld. Advocate, the provisions of Section 4(4)(b)(iii) do not get attracted. The appellants are not removing the goods from their factory to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
