TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 715X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the ‘place of removal’ - there cannot be any demand on the appellant, there being absence of definition of ‘place of removal’ in the CEA, 1944 - For the period thereafter, the decision in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd [2010 (4) TMI 335 - CESTAT, KOLKATA] eliminates the scope for collection of duty, where it was held that Subsequent sale at a later point of time and the actual sale price at the later point of time is not relevant for determining the assessable value - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee. - E/2303 & 2304/2005 - A/85707-85708/17/EB - Dated:- 6-2-2017 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri Vinay S Sejpal, Advocate for the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le on the amounts recovered from customers on sales from the depot at Bhiwandi by M/s Jai Clearing and adjusted towards godown charge of ₹ 3/bale (60 kg) per week and loading/unloading charges of ₹ 2.80/bag along with penalty under section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. Appellant has limited the challenge to the duty liability of ₹ 1,91,674 and the penalties imposed. We take note that appellant at the time of clearance was unable to estimate the transaction value of sale from the depot and was paying the differential between the duty on clearance value till its arrival at Bhiwandi and the duty on actual price at which customers picked up goods at the depot. On clearance from the factory, duty was discharged on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udibility of charges pertaining to the godown that are collected by M/s Jai Clearing from customers along with sale value. We find the issue stands decided for the period prior to June 2000 by the decision in re Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd which has held that 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le price. Though, there was a definition of place of removal being depot, we have in our order dated 22-10-2009 in paragraph 11 categorically held we find that prior to 1-7-2000, APPML had ex-factory clearances of paper in reels. We find that in that case, price for such clearances was the right basis for determining the value for assessment of the impugned clearances prior to 1-7-2000. Unless duty was paid on lower value compared to contemporaneous price for sale of such goods to unrelated buyers at the factory gate, in respect of these clearances, there is no case or any demand . The same findings would apply for the demands raised by the Revenue authorities during the period 28-9-1996 to 30-6-2000 in this case. As already noted above, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cate for the Respondents. The factual basis on which the Commissioner (Appeals) has taken the decision, is not being disputed by the Department. We do not find any infirmity in the conclusion reached by the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of each of the above periods. Further, we notice that the fact of removal to the COCO Outlets are undisputedly with the knowledge of the Department. In respect of clearances made to the depot (assuming that COCO Outlet has to be treated as a depot), the submission of the Department that the entire extra collection should be added to the assessable value, is contrary to the legal provisions. The assessment of goods transferred to the depot is required to be done at the time and place of removal. The goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|