TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayaraman, Member (T) [Order per: T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. -1. Revenue .has filed these appeals against Orders-in-Appeal No. 51, 52, 53/2000 (M-I), dated 12-4-2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai. The respondents have also filed their cross-objections. 2. The issue relates to correct valuation of the goods namely coated abrasives which were stock Transferred from the factory to the depots of the respondents and later sold to industrial consumers. The respondents are the manufacturers of bonded abrasives and coated abrasives and also another products called Cimcool. All these products are excisable. The appellants cleared the goods from the factory directly and also the goods were stock transfer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the conclusion that when the goods were stock transferred from the factory to the depot, duty is to be paid on the basis of the value prevailing at the time of removal from the factory to the depot. Once the duty is paid on the basis of the value of the goods in the depot at the time of removal from the factory, he stated that there is no need to chase the goods to see at what value the same are eventually sold. Moreover, only 0.5% of the sales from the depot is apportioned to the industrial consumers. Further, at the time of removal of the goods from the factory, the respondents would not be knowing whether they would be selling the same to the industrial consumers. In these circumstances the Commissioner (Appeals) did not find any merits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s discharged at the factory gate availing higher trade discount, actual sale takes place only at the depot and that place is the relevant place with reference to which value of goods is to be assessed. (3) Reliance placed by Commissioner (Appeals) on the Supreme Court decision in the case of MRF reported in 1997 (92) E.L.T. 309 (S.C.) is not at all applicable in view of the changed provisions in Section 4. 3. The Respondents have also filed their cross-objections and reiterated that Revenue's grounds of appeal do not merit serious consideration as they are contrary to law. 4. None appeared for the respondents. Ms. Sudha Koka learned SDR appeared for the revenue and reiterated the contentions given in the grounds of appeal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
