9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The goods manufactured by the appellant are first cleared from the factory to the Central Warehouse, on payment of duty on stock transfer basis and from there, the goods are sold to various depots all over India; At the time of clearance from the factory, since exact location of the depot from which the goods will be ultimately sold is not known, so the appellant discharges duty liability on highest transaction value determinable for all depots. 3. During the course of audit of the appellant's records, it was observed that sale pattern of Appellant is depot sale and since goods are cleared from depots to various dealers so the assessment was to be done as per Section 4 and duty paid on the value at whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actory gate prices with that prevalent at the depot on dates subsequent to the date of clearance. He further submitted that there is no basis for such determination and demand made is not sustainable. 7. The Ld. Representative of the department justified the impugned order. He referred to para 15.5 of the impugned order and submitted that there was difference in the value to the tune of Rs. 440 per motorcycle during the said period between the factory gate price as well as the depot price. Consequently, he justified the demand in the impugned order. 8. We heard both sides and perused the record. 9. In respect of the clearances made through depots, the goods are stock transferred first to the warehouse and subsequently to the depot from w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... records during audit. For example in the factory invoice dated 16/03/2012, the price adopted for payment of duty was Rs. 44627 for a particular model. This has been compared with the Bhopal Depot Sale Invoice dated 10/04/2012 to arrive at the differential value of Rs. 440/- on which the differential duty has been demanded. We are of the view that the mandate given by Section 4 (1) (b) read with Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules, for taking contemporaneous depot prices cannot be extended to depot sale invoice which is nearly one month subsequent to the date of clearance. It is common knowledge that on the date of clearance from the factory only those depot invoice prices will be available to the assessee which have been issued prior to that dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered which have been issued on or before the date of clearance of goods from the factory. Hence, we find that demand attributable to those invoices whose date taken by the Department is subsequent to the date of clearance from the factory cannot be sustained. Consequently, we are constrained to set aside demand amounting to Rs. 14,61,527/- for the above reasons. 10. After careful consideration of the full record we are of the view that the basis on which the demand has been raised by demanding differential duty is not legally sustainable. Duty already stands paid on the highest transaction value determinable for all depots as on the date of clearance from factory. This satisfies the mandate of Sec 4(1) (b) read with Rule 7 ibid. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
