9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 720X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to various depots needs to be included in the assessable value for this period and duty has to be demanded from them. The exact quantification of duty needs to be done by the adjudicating authority, as the show-cause notices issued are overlapping; we would leave the quantification issue to the adjudicating authority to come to a conclusion. Since the demand requires re-quantification, the penalty amount and the interest on the demand of the duty liability also needs to be worked out proportionate to the demand. To that extent only for the quantification of the demand for the period from 14.5.2003 to 30.6.2004, the matter is remitted to the adjudicating authority - Decided against assessee. - Appeal No: E/6/2007 - FINAL ORDER No. 26571 / 2013 - Dated:- 11-9-2013 - SHRI M. V. RAVINDRAN AND SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri C. Saravanan, Advocate For the Respondents : Shri Ganesh Havannur, Addl. Commissioner (AR) JUDGEMENT Per: M. V. Ravindran; The miscellaneous applications filed by the appellant as well as by Revenue are not listed today. Since we take up the matter for final disposal, they are disposed of as allowed. 2. This appeal is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contentions raised by the appellant and confirmed the demands. Hence this appeal. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would at the outset submit that the period involved in this appeal is overlapping. The demands have been confirmed for the period April 1993 to September 2006 in earlier cases, while the demand in this case is from 28.9.1996 to June 2004. He would submit that the issue of conversion of reels of paper into ream of paper has been decided by this Bench vide Final Order No.24/2010 dated 22.10.2009. He produces the copy of the said order and takes us through the findings recorded by the Bench and more specifically at paragraph 10 and 10.4 to fortify his argument that conversion of paper does not amount to any other new product coming into picture. It is his submission that the Excise duty has been discharged at the factory gate on the reels which after going to Hyderabad depot gets converted into reams. It is his submission that if the product which leaves Hyderabad depot is not the same as it was when it left the factory premises, there cannot be any further inclusion in the assessable value of the said product. He would submit that the goods whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... removal. He would also draw our attention to the definition of place of removal and submits that depot is considered as a place of removal and in the case in hand, there is no dispute that the appellant had cleared reams from Hyderabad depot to various depots for further sale. He would submit that identical issue came up before the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Brakes India Ltd. vs. CCE, Chennai: 2005 (184) E.L.T. 179 (Tri.-Chennai), wherein the Tribunal has taken a view that sale prices prevailing at the concerned depots at the time of clearance of goods from the factory needs to be adopted as assessable value. 6. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. The issue involved in this case is whether the appellant is required to pay the differential duty on the incidental charges charged by them for clearance of their final goods to various depots and to hold whether clearances from such other depots would constitute clearance from a place of removal . 6.1 The facts as narrated in paragraph 2 are not disputed by both sides. 6.2 On perusal of the records, we find that the period involved in this case is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aside and we do so. 7.2 As regards the demand of duty for the period from 1.7.2000 to 13.5.2003, we find that during this material period there was no definition in the provisions of the Central Excise Act for the place of removal . Though the adjudicating authority has relied upon the provisions of Central Excise Valuation Rules, we find that provisions of Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944, did not have definition of place of removal ; due to which it cannot be held that the clearances made by the appellant from various depots can be termed as clearances from place of removal and price prevailing during this period at those depots needs to be considered. In our view, for the period in question i.e. 1.7.2000 to 13.5.2003, we have no hesitation to hold that there cannot be any demand on the appellant, there being absence of definition of place of removal in the Central Excise Act, 1944. 7.3 Since the demand for the period 28.9.1996 to 13.5.2003 is set aside, we are of the view that any penalty visited on the appellant on these demands is liable to be set aside. 7.4 As regards the period in question from 14.5.2003 to 30.6.2004, we find that the show-cause notice wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods were actually transferred to other depots at Pune, Delhi and Calcutta and sold from there. The sale prices prevailing at these depots concerned at the time of goods from factory were adopted as assessable values, in this manner, the department determined differential value for the goods removed from the factory, depending on the sale price prevailing at Pune, Delhi or Calcutta as the case may be at the time of such removal from the factory. In our view, the said ratio is in favour of the Revenue. We hold that the demand of duty liability on the incidental charges charged by the appellant for transfer of goods from Hyderabad to various depots needs to be included in the assessable value for this period and duty has to be demanded from them. The exact quantification of duty needs to be done by the adjudicating authority, as the show-cause notices issued are overlapping; we would leave the quantification issue to the adjudicating authority to come to a conclusion. Since the demand requires re-quantification, the penalty amount and the interest on the demand of the duty liability also needs to be worked out proportionate to the demand. To that extent only for the quantificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
