9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 665X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty. No allegation is on record of any change or any alteration arising from the value adopted for the purposes of discharge of duty liability at the time of removal from the factory. On a plain reading of rule 5 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, it can be concluded that the order impugned before us is patently beyond the scope of law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/178/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hem, were enhanced from 4% to 8% with effect from 7th of July 2009 and, in the show cause notice issued to them, it was the case of central excise authorities that such stocks, as were in possession of the consignment agent from that date should discharge liability at the enhanced rate and, to the extent that goods were removed from the premises of the appellant, duty of ₹ 52,472 should be r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elying on the decision of the Tribunal in Tamil Nadu Industrial Explosives Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai [2010 (253) ELT 123 (Tri-Chennai)], it was contended, though in a reverse situation, that the determination of rate of duty with reference to 'place of removal' stood disapproved. 4. We have heard Learned Representative who reiterated the findings of the first appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the factory has a bearing on the assessable value. However, under the scheme of the law, the depot being defined as a place of removal for the purpose of valuation under Section 4 does not appear to have any relevance for determining the rate of duty applicable to the impugned goods for which, the date of removal from the factory alone appears to be relevant as per provisions of Rule 9A. . ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
