9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LHI], where it was held that Once the normal transaction value of the impugned goods sold from other place at or about the same time is ascertainable, there is no need to determine the assessable value on the basis of price at which the goods may be sold subsequent to the time of removal of goods - valuation issue need not be interfered. Penalty - Held that:- The penalties are upheld, but quantum reduced. Appeal allowed in part. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sserted that the duty was paid in terms of Rule, 7 however, the Department has sought to demand differential duty by taking into account the price at which the goods cleared from the factory were ultimately sold from the premises of the consignment agent. For such purposes, they adopted the valuation as per the sales realization for the said goods as per the sale patties of the consignment agent. (ii) He submitted that there is no justification for adoption for such a valuation which is in contravention of the Rule, 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules. In this connection, he relied on the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of E. I. Du Pont India Pvt. Ltd Vs. CCE, Chennai reported in 2005 (181) E.L.T. 27 (Tri.-Del.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the time nearest to the time of removal of goods under assessment." 6. Both sides agree that the valuation has been adopted by the appellant in terms of the Rule, 7 for duty payment at the time of clearance from factory. However, Revenue in the Show Cause Notice has proceeded to adopt at which the same goods were sold from the premises of the consignment agent. 7. In terms of Rule, 7 ibid, we are of the view that there is no mandate for adopting the valuation as has been adopted by the Lower Authorities. We note that identical issue has come up before the Tribunal in the case of E. I. Du Pont India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai (Supra) which has been relied by the Ld. Advocate. In the said case, the Tribunal has observed as follows:- "5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they had discharged the duty liability as per the transaction value based on the normal transaction value and the greatest aggregate quantity sold by their consignment agent whereas the Revenue has demanded duty on the basis of prices prevailing on dates subsequent to the date of removal. It has not been denied by the Revenue that the Appellants have paid the duty on the basis of price at which the "greatest aggregate quantity" of goods are sold. The Revenue, however, wants to determine the assessable value on the basis of price at which the greatest aggregate quantity of goods are sold subsequent to the removal of goods. Once the normal transaction value of the impugned goods sold from other place at or about the same time is ascertainable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
