9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1375X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri Rajeev Ranjan, Joint Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar The above stated two appeals are involving the same question of law, therefore they are taken together for decision. 2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant were engaged in the manufacture of Pipes & Tubes. The goods manufactured were both sold at the factory gate and were also transf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... through said Order-in-Original No. 181/Provisional-Assessment/JPL/2008 dated 14/08/2008, the appellants were directed to pay differential duty amounting to Rs. 1,70,464/-. Both the above stated Orders-in-Original were challenged by Revenue and appeals were filed before Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the valuation was required to be done under Rule 7 of Central Excise Valuation (Determin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is Tribunal. 3. Heard the ld. Counsel, Shri Rajesh Chhibber, for the appellant, he has drawn attention to the brief facts recorded by Commissioner (Appeals) wherein it has been stated that the appellant was selling their goods partly at the factory gate and partly through their consignment agent and submitted that this Tribunal through Final Order No. 71113/2016 dated 29/11/2016 has h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to depots or premises of consignment agent and the goods are not at all sold by asseassee at the factory gate i.e. the place of removal then only provisions of said Rule 7, are applicable. Admittedly, some of the goods were sold by the appellant at the factory gate. We, therefore, hold that provisions of Rule 7, were not applicable in the present case. We, therefore, set aside both the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
