Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 969 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - place of removal - Whether the appellants have paid the duty at the time of removal from the factory with intention to resort to under valuation of excisable goods and with intent to evade the payment of respected cenvat duty for the respective period in dispute? Held 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 goods are sold after their clearance from the factory but from the place from where such goods are removed - For the present case, it is apparent and admitted fact that before removing goods from the appellants factory in Raipur to their Depot in Nagpur the appellants have paid the Excise Duty. In the given scenario the definition of transaction value acquires importance for the adjudication of the above question. It becomes clear that the value is a normal price that is the price at which such goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee to a buyer where the buyer is not the related persons and the price is the sole consideration - the differentiating fact of the present case is that the appellants are not removing the entire manufactured Silicon Manganese to their Deport rather they are selling the major portion thereof from the factory itself and the remaining is being transferred to the Depot to be sold to the further buyers. The bare perusal makes it clear that Rule 7 is invokable only in the case where the goods are not sold by the manufacturer/ assessee from the factory, which basically is the place of removal. It is in that case only that the transaction value has to be considered as the value at which the manufactured product is sold from the Depot to its buyer. That too, at or about the same time - the Silicon Manganese is simultaneously sold from the factory/place of manufacture itself that too the major portion of the manufacture and it is only the part produced which has been shifted to Depot for further sale to the buyers. The Department has wrongly invoked Rule 7 of Valuation Rules. The transaction value in the present case is the value at which the Silicon Manganese has been sold by the appellant at its factory gate, while transferring the unsold portion thereon to the Depot. Apparently and admittedly, the excise duty has been paid by the appellant at the said value. The question of alleged short payment does not at all arise. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|