9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 583X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lassifiable under Chapters 29, 32 and 38 of the CETAT, 1985. The appellant established a depot at Hyderabad which was registered in February, 2005. After registration of the depot, the appellant started clearing their final products on payment of duty from their factory to their Hyderabad Depot for onward sale. The dispute is for the period April 2005 to November 2006 for clearances made to the Hyderabad Depot. The payment of duty on goods cleared from factory to the depot are governed by Rule 7 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000 which is reproduced below for ready reference. "Where the excisable goods are not sold by the assessee at the time and place of removal but are transferred to a depot, premises of a consignment agent or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equal amount. When the issue was carried before the first appellate authority, the Commissioner(Appeals) passed the impugned order dt. 30/04/2009 in which the demand for differential duty was upheld in toto. This order is in challenge in the present proceedings. 3. Heard Shri Ravi Raghavan, learned advocate for the appellant as well as Shri Gopakumar, learned AR present for the Revenue. 4.1. The learned advocate submitted that the valuation adopted by Revenue in the show-cause notice is not as per Rule 7 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules. This Rule provides for payment of duty at the factory gate for clearances made to the depot on the basis of the contemporaneous values prevalent for sale of goods from the depot. The learned advoca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the basis of such table, it cannot be concluded that all the clearances have been made strictly in terms of Rule 7 and submitted that the case may need reverification. 6. We have heard both sides and perused records. 7.1. Both sides are in agreement that the valuation of goods cleared to the depot for subsequent sale is required to be determined in terms of Rule 7 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules. The Department, however, has taken the view that in many cases, falling within the period of dispute, the appellant has not adopted such valuation strictly in terms of Rule 7. The appellant however has challenged such statement. In any case, we are of the view that the allegation of suppression raised in the show-cause notice is based on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
