9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 765X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rwal, DR for the Respondent Per V. Padmanabhan The appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 18.10.2010. The appellant is a manufacturer of electrical wires and cables and are availing Cenvat credit on the inputs and capital goods. The appellant used to clear their goods through depot and in the case of price increase, pay the differential duty on such increased price of the goods. Du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... long with payment of interest and penalty. When the order was challenged before commissioner (Appeals) the same was upheld. Hence, the present appeal. 2. With the above background we heard Mr. Kumar Vikram, Id. Counsel for the appellant as well as Shri Yogesh Agarwal, DR for the Revenue. 3. The counsel for the appellant relied upon the following decisions of the Tribunal and submitted that the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods are sold through depot, there is no sale at the time of removal of the goods from the factory gate. Section 4(3)(c)(iii) includes the depot as a place removal when excisable goods are sold from the depot after their clearance from the factory. Section 4 of the Central Excise Act provides for payment of Central Excise Duty on transaction value prevalent at the time and place of removal of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjusted the excess duty paid with the short paid duty which is not permissible in law. 7. The appellant has relied upon various decisions of the Tribunal which they have been claimed to be in their favour. We find that the various case laws relied upon by the appellant are not in-identical facts. Hence, we are unable to extent their benefits to the present case. 8. In view of the above, the Imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
