9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 597X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibed in Board's circular dt. 14-10-1996 and 30-06-2000. Accordingly, eleven show cause notices were issued to appellants as follows : S.No. SCN No. Date of SCN Period of SCN Duty Amount (Rs.) Duty Amount debited (Rs.) 1. V/15/103/03-Adj. 29.04.2004 09/1999 to 09/2003 1,12,10,234 16,10,554 2. V/15/125/04-Adj. 18.10.2004 10/2003 to 04/2004 6,02,485 78,47,833 3. V/15/46/05-Adj. 26.05.2005 05/2004 to 10/2004 6,43,208 4. V/15/102/05-Adj. 24.11.2005 11/2004 to 04/2005 28,57,580 5. V/15/64/06-Adj. 12.05.2006 05/2005 to 10/2005 37,44,560 6. V/15/141/06-Adj. 27.11.2006 11/2005 to 05/2006 44,43,892 88,61,776 7. V/15/75/07-Adj. 03.07.2007 06/2006 to 12/2006 13,65,931 8. V/15/07/08-Adj. 16.01.2008 01/2007 to 06/2007 14,05,449 9. V/15/81/08-Adj. 30.06.2008 07/2007 to 12/2007 8,38,676 10. V/15/08/09-Adj. 04.02.2009 01/2008 to 06/2008 8,07,828 11. V/15/89/09-Adj. 15.07.2009 07/2008 to 12/2008 96,98,677 96,98,677 3,76,18,520 2,80,18,840 The first 5 notices were adjudicated by Commissioner vide OIO dt. 05-09-2009 in favour of Revenue which, on appeal to CESTAT, was set aside and ordered for de no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emand raised on the entire differential value. Reliance placed on CCE Vs Maruti Udyog Ltd. - 2002 (141) ELT 3 (SC). (v) If the deduction of cost of transportation from the value is considered in the eleven SCNs, the duty liability will be further reduced, with consequential reduction in the interest liability and penalty. (vi) For the year 2000-01, there is an error in computing the value of clearance to Southern region in the SCN. Duty liability wrongly shown as Rs. 7,63,425/- instead of Rs. 3,52,645/-. There will be further reduction of Rs. 4,10,780/- in the total duty demand. (vii) Between October 2008 to December 2008, goods removed for captive consumption have been wrongly considered as stock transfer to Kolkata branch. If this value is excluded, there will be further reduction of duty demand of Rs. 6,85,839/-. (viii) On limitation, the department has engaged in correspondence with the appellant since 17-05-2000, but has issued notice in April 2004. Hence, the demand under the first show cause notice is barred by limitation. Consequently, penalty under section 11AC is also liable to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, Shri Arun Kumar, Ld. A.R appearing for Revenue, suppor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s for the purpose of charging of duty of excise - (1) Where under this Act, the duty of excise is chargeable on any excisable goods with reference to value, such value, shall, subject to the other provisions of this section, be deemed to be - (a) the normal price thereof, that is to say, the price at which such goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee to buyer in the course of wholesale trade for delivery at the time and place of removal, where the buyer is not a related person and the price is the sole consideration for the sale. 1.4 The expression "place of removal" was defined by section 4 (4) (b) of the Act as under: SECTION 4 Valuation of excisable goods for the purpose of charging of duty of excise - .... .... .... (4) For the purposes of this section, - (a) .... .... .... (b) "place of removal" means - (i) a factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacture of the excisable goods; (ii) a warehouse or any other place or premises wherein the excisable goods have been permitted to be deposited without payment of duty; (iii) a depot, premises of a consignment agent or any other place or premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he term "place of removal" was defined as under: Section 4 (3) (c) : "place of removal" means - (i) a factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacture of the excisable goods; (ii) a warehouse or any other place or premises wherein the excisable goods have been permitted to be deposited without payment of duty, from where such goods are removed; 1.11 The term "transaction value" was defined as under : Section 4 (3) (d) : "transaction value" means the price actually paid or payable for the goods, when sold, and includes in addition to the amount charged as price, any amount that the buyer is liable to pay to, or on behalf of, the assessee, by reason of, or in connection with the sale, whether payable at the time of the sale or at any other time, including, but not limited to, any amount charged for, or to make provision for, advertising or publicity, marketing and selling organization expenses, storage, outward handling, servicing, warranty, commission or any other matter; but does not include the amount of duty of excise, sales tax and other taxes, if any, actually paid or actually payable on such goods. 1.12 Rule 7 of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (iii) a depot, premises of a consignment agent or any other place or premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory from where such goods are removed; Section 4 (3) (cc) - "time of removal", in respect of the excisable goods removed from the place of removal referred to in sub-clause (iii) of clause (c), shall be deemed to the time at which such goods are cleared from the factory. 1.15 In these two cases, during relevant period under appeal, a depot, premises of consignment agent or any place or premises from where the excisable goods were sold after clearance from the factory were treated as 'places of removal'. Such "places of removal" was significant to ascertain the price prevailing thereat at the time of removal of excisable goods therefrom. Law contemplated that the price prevailing at a relevant point of time at the place of removal was to be considered as normal transaction value. Therefore, the term 'time of removal' was defined to specify the moment of removal of the goods from the places referred to in sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) of Section 4(1) (a) of the Act to rule out abnormality and anomaly in valuation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'place of removal' as defined by Explanation (c) to Section 4(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 confined its territory to a factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacture of the excisable goods and a warehouse or any other place or premises wherein the excisable goods were permitted to be deposited without payment of duty. Meaning of the term 'transaction value' remained the same as amended from 1.7.2000, as extracted herein before." 8. Even a cursory perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the adjudicating authority has not analysed the contentious issues with respect to changes in law that were effected on at least two occasions during the entire period of dispute. While the period of disputes starts from 09/1999, the adjudicating authority has considered the law only from 01-07-2000 when Section 4 of the Central Excise Act was substituted vide Finance Act, 2000. This is very evident from para-15 of the impugned order. There also appears to be merit in the contention of the appellant. Although there is some discussion on provision of law prior to 01-07-2000 in para-25 of the order, however, the authority has only made a passing reference thereof an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
