TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant when Revenue choose to adopt value of clearances of a day adopting subsequent day's aggregate sale value. 2. Appellant says that according to the law in force at the relevant point of time for determination of assessable value of goods cleared from consignment agent's place that was to the done with reference to the place where from the goods were cleared at or about same time following the principles laid down in Rule 7 of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2007. However this is subject to the basic provision of Central Excise Act, 1944 under section 4(1)(a) and the Explanation in clause (c) thereto under sub-section (3). The Rule 7 reads as under: Rule 7 of Valuation Rule 2000 "Where the excisable goods are not sold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the greatest aggregate quantity of goods are sold. Rule 7 read with Rule 2 suggests the manner how transaction value of clearance made at the place of consignment agent's premises at the relevant point of time is to be made. Thus where the goods are not sold at or about the same time, at the time nearest to the time clearances of the day is to be adopted. Relying on para 19-20 of the Board's Circular No.354/81/200-TRU, dated 30.06.2000 it was submitted by the appellant that the nearest value to be considered was the preceding day's aggregate value but not the subsequent day's aggregate value. Exemplifying the case, Board has substantiated the stand of the appellant in para 20 of the circular. Appellant's stand was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity suo mottu having created a jurisdiction for himself to decide the variation issue, made the adjudication fatal. According to appellant, there being no variation in quantity or quality of the goods, the authority may be directed to determine the value of the goods as cleared from the consignment agent's premises applying provision of law as aforesaid as well as paras 19 and 20 of the Board's Circular aforesaid. 5. Revenue's stand is that assessable value of the goods cleared from consignment's agent's premises is to be determined in accordance with Rule 7 without any variation to the mandate of the Rule. Goods were under-valued adopting a lower price. That is impermissible in law. Law states that the value of clearance s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... defined by Rule 2 (b) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 was the normal transaction value and meant to be greatest aggregate quantity of the goods sold in the time nearest to the time of removal of goods under assessment in the event where such goods were not sold at or about the same time, Mandate of Rule 7 was that the assessable value of goods cleared from the consignment agent's premises at a particular time, where price was sole consideration of sale, is the normal transaction value of such goods cleared at or about the same time from that premises satisfying the requirement of Rule 2 (b) of the Valuation Rules, 2000 at that time. Combined reading of Rule 7 and Rule 2(b) with the provision certained in section 4(1)(b) esta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e given due to weightage. The intention of the circular that immediate preceding value is considered as representative to the nearest transaction value as laid down in Rule 7 is considerable. At every stage of his ascertainment of assessable value from the statement of clearance submitted by the appellant, appellant shall be confronted with the proposition of the adjudicating authority for appropriate rebuttal since the matter is very old to avoid difficulties of both sides. The authority shall resolve the dispute at the grass root with the guidelines of the law discussed above and pass a reasoned and speaking order. 10. In so far as the contention on the variation of the goods is concerned, the show-cause does not depict anything in that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|