9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 969X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Findings O-in-A No. & date Findings 1. E/51245/2017 Vandana Global Ltd. 26.05.15 August 2014 to Jan. 2015 4,89,552 12/ADJ/AC/R D-I/CEX/ 2016 dated 12.05.16 Dropped the proceedings BHO-EXCUS-002-APP-011-17-18 dated 05.04.17 Set aside the order in original and allowed the depart-mental appeal. 2. E/52352/2016 Vandana Global Ltd. 19.10.14 Oct. 2013 to July 2014 4,36,798 08/ADJ/ AC/RD-I/CEX/ 2015 dated 17.04.15 Confirmed the full demand alongwith interest and imposed 50% of duty as penalty BHO-EXCUS-002-APP-400-15-16 dated 10.03.16 Upheld the order of the adjudicating authority and dismissed the party's appeal. 3. E/50301/2015 Vandana Global Ltd. 29.04.13 April 2012 to December 2012 4,40,069 65/ADJ/ DC/RD-I/CEX/ 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be in reference to the time at which such goods were cleared from the factory the valuation at which duty was payable with reference to the value was not available at the time of removal when the appellant have actually paid the excise duty. Accordingly, it was alleged that the appellants were not discharging their duty liability on finished goods so cleared through Depot as per the provisions of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2007. Resultantly, the demands as mentioned in the chart above were proposed vide the show cause notices as mentioned above. The said demands in four of these appeals have been confirmed not only by the respective Order-in-Original but also vide respective Order-in-Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt has relied upon M/s. Ispat Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Nagpur - 2018 - TIOL - 1576-CESTAT (Mum.) and Greaves Cottons Ltd. vs. CCE, Chennai - 2017 (7) GSTN 350 (Tri.- Chennai). The order accordingly, is prayed to be set aside and appeal is prayed to be allowed. 6. Ld. DR, while rebutting these arguments has submitted that the adjudicating authorities below have given a speaking findings that sale of finished goods of the appellant through the Depot is very much covered under the frame work of Rule 4 (1) B... of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 7 of Valuation Rules 2000. Appellant accordingly has been required to pay the impugned respective differential duty. It is submitted that while arriving at the said decision the adjudicatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... where such goods are removed; [(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 be the time at which such goods are cleared from the factory;] Clause (cc) thereof defines the time of removal. In respect of the excisable goods removed from the place of removal as mentioned in 4 (c) as: "It shall be deemed to be the time at which such goods are cleared from the factory." 10. The bare perusal of both these provisions makes it clear that the place of removal is not merely confined to the factory/ the place of manufacture but also includes a warehouse and even a Depot provided no duty at the time of shifting was paid and that the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 003 (SC) 144. The above discussed definitions clarifies that if the goods are not sold at the factory gate or at the warehouse but they are transferred by the assessee to its Depots or consignment agents or any other place for sale, the assessable value in such case for the goods cleared from the factory/warehouse shall be the normal transaction value of such goods at the Depot etc. at or about the same time on which the goods are being valued are removed from the factory or the warehouse and it is only in this situation that Rule 7 of the valuation Rules 2000 can be invoked, as has been invoked by the Department and confirmed by the Adjudicating authorities below in the present case. But we observe that the differentiating fact of the pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the manufacture and it is only the part produced which has been shifted to Depot for further sale to the buyers. The question of invoking Rule 7 of Valuation Rules, 2000 is absolutely irrelevant and also illegal. Tribunal, Chennai CESTAT in a decision in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. CCE, Chennai - 2010 (261) ELT 695 while relying upon a Larger Bench decision of Tribunal in Ispat Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Raigarh - 2007 (209) ELT 185 has held that the transfer of part of production to another plant of the same assessee and balance production sold to independent buyers would not attract Rule 7 of Valuation Rules when the manufactured product is also sold to the customers even at the time and place of removal. It was he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
