9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and paid the differential duty in respect of the actual price of the goods sold. The Commissioner (Appeals) had held that Rule 173G(1)(d) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2001/2002 can only be invoked where there was failure in fortnightly/monthly payment of duty and there is no finding that there was such failure. Therefore the above questions of law are answered in favour of the appellant. - 2074 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 20-4-2009 - Prabha Sridevan and T.S. Sivagnanam, JJ. [Judgment per : Prabha Sridevan, J.]. - In this civil miscellaneous appeal, the following substantial questions of law are framed for consideration. "(i) Whether Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 or Rule 173G(1)(d) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able rule is Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 and that they relied on the said rule to show that when the goods are not sold at the factory gate, then the value of the goods shall be the value at the time nearest to the time of removal from the factory gate, if the value of such goods sold from the depot is not available. According to them they were not liable to pay any interest, since they had paid the differential duty even before the show cause notice. 4. In the order in original, it was held that the assessee had to pay interest for the entire period, since they have not followed Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) recorded the following facts as admitted. "Admittedly the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the department and that in fact it is only on payment of the differential duty that the department got seized of the issue and had issued the show cause notice. 6. We find that in an almost identical case in Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad v. Rucha Engineering Private Limited [2008 (223) E.L.T. 161 (Bom.)], the assessee, who was a manufacturer of motor vehicle parts had cleared the goods as per the Purchase order placed with them by their customers and had paid the Central Excise duty. After clearance of the goods, the assessee received the amendment to the said Purchase Order for enhancement of rate with retrospective effect. Therefore on the basis of the supplementary invoice, he paid the differential duty. The Bombay Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not 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 (hereafter 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. In this case, since it has been admitted that the value of the goods sold from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
