9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 and discharged duty at the time of clearance from their factory. As per Rule 7 of the Rules, Central Excise Duty was paid at the factory gate at a price prevailing at the depot / consignment agents end at the same time or the time nearest to the time of removal of goods from their factory. The appellant has adopted the method of payment of duty as mentioned above in Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, for the clearances effected to their depot and consignment agents. Once duty has been paid at the time of clearance from their factory as provided under Rule 7, the appellant is not liable to pay any differential duty based on subsequent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - SHRI ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Debasish Gupta, Consultant for the Appellant Shri B.K. Singh, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER M/s. Alom Extrusions Ltd., 184, J.N. Mukherjee Road, Bandhaghat, Howrah (the Appellant ) are engaged in the manufacture of Aluminium extruded shapes and sections. The appellant was issued two Show Cause Notices dated 29.03.2011 and 11.04.2011 by the Anti-Evasion Wing of the Central Excise Commissionerate, alleging that they had undervalued the goods sold from their depot and consignment agents resulting in evasion of Central Excise Duty to the tune of Rs.28,20,514/- (both the Notices together). The demand raised covers the period from 2006-07 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d from the factory and by inclusion of insurance charges in the assessable value. However, the ld. adjudicating authority has not taken into account the cases where the goods were sold at a price lower than the price at which the goods were removed from the factory. He has dropped the remaining demands raised in the Notices. 3. The appellant filed an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and contended that when they paid the duty of Central Excise by following Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000, the assessment is deemed to be considered as provisional. Hence, the adjudicating authority should have adjusted the excess receipt and short payment and arrived at the demand, if an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that the Revenue has failed to establish that the goods were sold at a higher price from the consignment agents premises vis- -vis the price at which the goods were assessed at the factory gate and thus dropped the allegations made in the Show Cause Notices. Accordingly, the appellant submits that the ld. adjudicating authority has erred in confirming the demand of Central Excise Duty of Rs.4,69,377.91/- on the ground that some of the goods were sold at the consignment agents end at a higher price, calculated on yearly basis. 5.2. The appellant has relied upon the Board Circular No. 251/85/96-CX. Dated 14.10.1996 wherein it has been clarified that in case of inter-depot transfer of goods, duty may be initially charged with reference t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t sold by the assessee at the time and place of removal but are transferred to a depot, premises of a consignment agent or any other place or premises (hereinafter referred to as such other place ) from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the place of removal and where the assessee and the buyer of the said goods are not related and the price is the sole consideration for the sale, the value shall be the normal transaction value of such goods sold from such other place at or about the same time and, where such goods are not sold at or about the same time, at the time nearest to the time of removal of goods under assessment. 8.1. We observe that the appellant has adopted the method of payment of duty as mentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt has not adopted the price prevalent at the depot / consignment agents at the same time or at the nearest time when they paid the duty at the time of clearance from their factory. Accordingly, we hold that the appellant has rightly paid duty as per Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 and there is no liability to pay any differential duty on account of difference in the value of clearance of the same goods from the depot / consignment agents subsequently to independent buyers. In view of the above, we hold that the appellant is liable to the differential duty only to the extent of Rs.23,052/- confirmed in the impugned order along with interest. 11. We observe that the issue involved in this case related to valuation of clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
