9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 720X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the Central Excise department. In addition to sale of their goods at factory gate and depots located at various places, they are also clearing paper and paper board in form of reels on payment of duty to their corporate office/depot at Hyderabad on stock transfer basis for conversion into reams. After conversion, these goods are partly sold at Hyderabad depot and partly through other depots by raising commercial invoices. The value adopted by assessee for assessing and clearances from the factory is ex-mill price i.e., ex-factory price which is uniform to all the wholesale dealers and also for stock transfer to depots. However, in respect of sales through depots, though basic price is one and the same, it varies from dealers price due to inclusion of the expenses towards freight, insurance, etc., for transferring the goods to various depots. The appellant-assessee has taken abatement on Excise duty, CESS and cash discounts in the invoices itself while selling the goods at factory gate, while stock transferring the goods to various depots abatement are claimed for the same but expenses incurred for stock transferring of the goods like freight and insurance which are collectivel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CCE: 2001 (130) E.L.T. 721 (S.C.) would be applicable in this case as if the goods which are already duty-paid, if they do not get manufactured at depot, then the question of inclusion of any further charges collected by the appellant assessee would not arise. He would also submit that the extended period invoked in this case is incorrect in respect of at least one show-cause notice dated 14.8.2000 inasmuch as Revenue authorities have on a very identical issue had issued show-cause notices and which has culminated in an order which is in favour of the assessee by this Tribunal. 5. Learned departmental representative on the other hand at the outset would submit that the issue involved in the Final Order No.24/2010 dated 22.10.2009 is totally on different facts while the facts in the case in hand are totally different. It is his submission that in that case, the appellants were before the Tribunal only in respect of non-inclusion of conversion charges in the assessable value of the reels cleared from the factory premises and converted at Hyderabad depot. On a specific query from the Bench, it is his submission that he is not aware whether Revenue has contested this decision before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 996 to 30.6.2000; the second segment is for the period from 1.7.2000 to 13.5.2003 and the last segment is for the period from 14.5.2003 to 30.6.2004. 7.1 We take up the first segment i.e., period involved between 28.9.1996 to 30.6.2000. During this period, the provisions of Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1994, mandated ascertaining normal price of the goods cleared from the factory gate. It is undisputed in this case that in order dated 22.10.2009, in respect of the very same assessee, we have categorically held that for the period in question, the place of removal was factory gate and since the conversion of paper reels into reams does not amount to manufacture; we had also held that the factory gate sale price should be adopted for discharge of duty liability. In the case in hand, we find that the appellant had discharged the duty liability on the clearances made during this period at a price considered as factory gate sale price. Though, there was a definition of 'place of removal' being depot, we have in our order dated 22.10.2009 in paragraph 11 categorically held 'we find that prior to 1.7.2000, APPML had ex-factory clearances of paper in reels. We find that in that case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Brakes India Ltd. (supra) covers the issue which has been agitated by the appellant. The said ratio is reproduced below: 4. After considering the submissions, we note that the period of dispute is entirely after the amendment of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, which was effected on 28-9-96 vide Finance Act, 1996. Both sides have adverted to the amended provisions. After the amendment, a depot or any other place or premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory is also a 'place of removal' for the purpose of valuation of such goods under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. 'Place of removal' figures significantly in proviso (ia) to Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 4 also. This provision, which came into force on 28-9-1996, reads as under :- (ia) Where the price at which such goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee is different for different places of removal, each such price shall, subject to the existence of other circumstances specified in clause (a), be deemed to be the normal price of such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
