9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant M/s. Neeraj Pipes Pvt. Ltd. manufacture M.S. Steel Tubes. They cleared some of their goods through their "Consignment agents". The sale had taken place not from the factory gate, but through the Consignment Agents. Revenue proceeded against the appellants on the ground that they had not discharged their duty liability on the value of the goods in accordance with Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 for the period from 27-7-2000 to 19-1-2005. The original authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 5,06,029/- towards Central Excise Duty and Education Cess of Rs. 1,248/- under proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act. Interest under Section 11AB was demanded. E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t: SECTION 4. Valuation of excisable goods for purposes of charging of duly of excise. - (1) Where under this Act, the duty of excise is chargeable on any excisable goods with reference to their value, then, on each removal of the goods, such value shall - (a) in a case where the goods are sold by the assessee, for delivery at the time and place of the removal, the assessee and the buyer of the goods are not related and the price is the sole consideration for the sale, be the transaction value; (b) in any other case, including the case where the goods are not sold, be the value determined in such manner as may be prescribed. 5.2. A close reading of Section 4 reveals that when there is no sale from the factory gate, Section 4(1)( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome into the picture and the value should be determined in accordance with Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules. 5.3 The learned Consultant has pointed out that the issue involved in the present appeals is squarely covered by the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Hyderabad, in the matter of M/s. Mahalakshmi Profiles Ltd. Another v. CCE in Orders-in-Appeal Nos. 20, 21 /2006(H-I)CE dated 13-4-2006. He has also stated that the Commissioner (Appeals), in appellant's own case [ Neeraj Pipes (P) Ltd. ] , in Order-in-Appeal No. 47/2006 (H-IV)CE dated 30-11-2006, has accepted in para 7 that "prior to 14-5-2003 duty is not sustainable" in view of the definition of 'Place of removal' and also in para 8 that "department had knowledge. Hence, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
