TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 943X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - a similar issue has come up before this Tribunal in the case of Tata Engineering and Locomotive [2005 (3) TMI 218 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI], wherein this Tribunal observed that the price of goods sold to dealers at the time of removal from the factory is available, then the Valuation rules will not be applicable to the facts of the case - Admittedly, in this case, the factory gate price is available ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e been cleared from the factory. Revenue is of the view that as per Rule 7 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, the appellant is required to pay duty for the clearances made from depot at the depot price. In these set of facts, the charge of under valuation is made against the appellant. Consequently, show cause notice was issued on 25.05.2005 to demand differential duty on the clearances made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vokable in the facts and circumstances of this case and therefore, show cause notice is not sustainable. He further submits that show cause notice has been issued by invoking extended period of limitation. As the fact of clearing the goods was in the knowledge of the department in November 2001 itself, therefore, extended period of limitation is not invokable. To support his contention, he relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the submissions made by both sides, we find that in this case the appellant is selling goods to independent buyers from factory gate and clearing goods to their depot on payment of duty and from the depot, they are selling the goods to independent buyers. In that circumstance, whether the appellant is required to pay duty on the price at which the goods have been sold from the depot or not. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
