TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to independent buyers at similar or lower prices. Therefore, the application of Rule 8 of Central Excisable Valuation Rules, 2000 is not correct. In this regard, the assessee has given copies of some sale invoices as a proof that they sold the goods to independent buyers also - the duty demand of ₹ 15,10,815.00 along with interest and equivalent penalty is not sustainable and the same is hereby dropped - demand set aside. The demand of ₹ 2,12,180/-, where department says that assessee paid the duty on invoice price which was less than the revised MRP - Held that: - If MRP has been revised and the same was correctly reflected in the invoice, the said demand cannot be sustained. This fact is required to be verified by the origi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5.05.2007 passed by Addl. Commissioner, Central Excise has been sustained. The Order-in-Original dated 25.05.2007 confirms the demand of duty of ₹ 30,43,631/- along with interest and imposes equivalent penalty against the assessee appellant. 2. The brief facts are that: (i) The Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of pesticides and insecticides falling under Chapter 38 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were clearing their products to their depots situated at various parts of the country on stock transfer basis. (ii) Show Cause Notice No.33/2005 dated 15.02.2005 was issued to the appellant alleging undervaluation of the products thereby evading Central Excise duty. It was mentioned that as per Rule 7 of Centra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A. (ii) W.e.f. 01.03.2003, the insecticides manufactured by the appellant, falling under tariff heading 3808.10, were notified for assessment under Section 4A of the Excise Act vide Notification No.10/2003-CE(NT) dated 01.03.2003. (iii) Prior to that, the goods were assessed under Section 4 of the Excise Act, though appellant was voluntarily affixing MRP on the goods. (iv) In view of the introduction of the MRP based assessment for the product, appellant revised the MRP, which was comparatively lower than the MRP printed on the packing materials lying in their stock as on 01.03.2003. The declared revised MRP in respect of the finished goods was intimated to the Superintendent vide letter dated 05.03.2003. (v) The Order-i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arest transaction value . ( c) Price variation at depot subsequent to the time of removal is not includible in the assessable value. (d) Price difference is only on account of post-removal expenses. (e) The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CC CE, Nagpur vs Ispat Industries Ltd., 2015 (324) ELT 670 (S.C. ) has held that during period 01.07.2000 to 31.03.2003, depot, premises of a consignment agent or any other place from where excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory was no longer place of removal. Therefore, freight or transportation expenses are not includible in the assessable value. (viii) Regarding alleged incorrect MRP assessment -- goods cleared on invoiced price which is less th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent case, the assessee is also selling the goods to independent buyers at similar or lower prices. Therefore, the application of Rule 8 of Central Excisable Valuation Rules, 2000 is not correct. In this regard, the assessee has given copies of some sale invoices as a proof that they sold the goods to independent buyers also. CESTAT in its decision in the case of ISPAT Industries Ltd (supra) has held that Rule 8 of Valuation Rules is applied only if entire production is for captively consumed. Therefore, the duty demand of ₹ 15,10,815.00 along with interest and equivalent penalty is not sustainable and the same is hereby dropped. 6.2 Second part of the demand comprises of ₹ 2,12,180/-, where department says that assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the assessable value. It is to be noted that the goods actually have been removed from the depots only. In other words, goods have been sold from the depot and not from the factory gate; when it is so, the transaction value at the time of sale from the depot is to be taken as assessable value for charging the duty of Central Excise. The facts in the case of CC CE, Nagpur Vs Ispat Industries Ltd (supra) are different and, therefore, the ratio laid-down there is not applicable to the present facts. 6.4 For the present facts where goods have directly been stock transferred (without their sale) to the assessee s depot and when the goods are sold from the depot, Rule 7 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 is applicable. There is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
