Correct valuation law across changing excise regimes required fresh adjudication after duty demand on depot sales was set aside.

Duty demand on depot sales and consignment transfers was set aside because the adjudication did not apply the correct valuation law across the entire disputed period under section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The order substantially relied on the post-1.7.2000 regime, but the demand also covered the earlier pre-1.7.2000 period and the later 14.5.2003 amendment, with only passing reference to the earlier framework. As the place of removal and the appellant's factual and legal objections were not properly examined under the applicable regimes, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on facts and law, and the penalties were also set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned adjudication confirming duty on depot sales and consignment transfers was vitiated for failing to apply the correct valuation law across the different statutory regimes applicable to the disputed period, warranting de novo adjudication.

Analysis: The disputed period covered multiple phases of valuation law under section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, including the pre-1.7.2000 regime, the post-1.7.2000 regime, and the subsequent amendment from 14.5.2003. The adjudicating authority had proceeded substantially on the basis of the law in force from 1.7.2000, while the demand also covered periods prior thereto. The impugned order was found to have only passing reference to the earlier regime and to have confirmed the demand without properly analysing the effect of the changing legal framework, the relevant concept of place of removal, and the appellant's factual and legal objections.

Conclusion: The impugned order suffered from legal infirmity for non-application of the correct law to the entire disputed period and required fresh examination.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand and penalties were set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh adjudication on facts and law.

---