9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R, for the respondents Per: Dr. Chittarajan Satapathy, These thirteen appeals were taken up together for hearing and disposal as the issue involved is the same but only the periods are different. Shri K.S. Subhash Chandiran, Ld. Advocate, appearing for the appellants states that they have removed part of the impugned goods for clearance to independent buyers and they have also tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as has been done. 2. Ms. Indira Sisupal, Ld. DR states that the appellants were required to pay duty in respect of impugned goods transferred to their own depot for subsequent sale in terms of Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. As per the said Rules, the depot price prevailing as on the date of clearance from the factory is required to be adopted. Hence, the demand raised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les, 2000 to mean that when goods are sold to independent buyers at the time and place of removal even though partially, the provisions of Rule 7 will not be attracted vide Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai - 2010 261 ELT 695. While interpreting thus, the Tribunal has placed reliance on the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2007 (209) ELT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocate of the appellants that three of the demands are time barred, we find no merit in these submissions. Even though all the demands are on similar issue, the amounts are different relating to different consignments and the invoices and sales details of the same were not furnished by the appellants to the department. Mere filing of RT 12 returns showing consolidated figures for the entire mon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
