TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d from the premises of consignment agent - there is no infirmity in the manner in which the value has been arrived at by the lower authorities. Extended period of limitation - Held that: - The appellants are required to assess the value in terms of Central Excise law on the basis of self assessment basis. In case the sales are made through consignment agent, it would not be in the knowledge of the Revenue. It is the duty of the appellant to clearly disclose that no sale is made from the factory but all the sales are made from the premises of the consignment agent - extended period rightly invoked. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Application No. E/COD/10751/2016 Appeal No. E/12045/2016-DB - Order No. A/ 10373 /2018 - D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was argued that the pre-requisite condition for invocation of Rule 7 of Central Excise Rules is that the excisable goods are not sold by the assessee at the time and place of removal but are transferred to depot and premises of the consignment agent or any other place or premises. It was argued that Revenue has wrongly relied on the instruction on valuation issued by CBE C vide F.No. 354/81/2000-TRU dated 30.6.2010. It was also argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not examined all the case laws cited by the appellant and while submissions were recorded as having been made but the same has not been considered including the claim for correct determination of duty in their appeal memo. It was also argued that the transaction on sale of g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said clearances and therefore allegation of suppression is not sustainable. It was also asserted that show-cause notice did not consider the expenses incurred towards transportation, commission of C F agent and cash discount as well as other expenses shall be permissible under the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of price of excisable goods) Rules, 2000. A perusal of the foresaid reply clearly show that the appellant had admitted that they are clearing the goods to the consignment agent and are not selling the gods from the factory gate. There was not an iota of assertion that the goods are being sold at the factory gate and that Section 4(1)(a) is applicable. The appeal papers do not contained the grounds of appeal filed before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e determined in such manner as may be prescribed. The phrase place of removal' is defined under Section 4(3)) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It states that: - (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;] 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; Rule 7 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of price of excisable goods) Rules, 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of consignment agent as the place of removal. Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of price of excisable goods) Rules, 2000 lays down the manner in which assessment needs to be done in these circumstances. Since the sole defence of the appellant that the goods were not sold at the factory gate is unsubstantiated and was never raised before the original adjudicating authority or before the first appellate authority, the same cannot be allowed to be raised at this stage especially when it is seen from the replies made by the appellant before the lower authorities that they had admitted the goods were sold from the premises of consignment agent. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the manner in which the v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|