https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124684 Valuation of clearances sold through depots or consignment agents was held to depend on the post-28-9-96 change in the definition of "place of removal". For the period before that amendment, factory-gate price remained the normal value under Section 4(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, so differential duty could not be demanded for the earlier period. The duty demand was therefore confined to the period after 28-9-96. On penalty, the amount had to reflect the restricted demand and the fact that penalty was imposed under Rule 173Q rather than Section 11AC; equal penalty was not warranted, and the penalty was reduced. en-us Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Oct 2012 12:01:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124684 Valuation of clearances sold through depots or consignment agents was held to depend on the post-28-9-96 change in the definition of "place of removal". For the period before that amendment, factory-gate price remained the normal value under Section 4(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, so differential duty could not be demanded for the earlier period. The duty demand was therefore confined to the period after 28-9-96. On penalty, the amount had to reflect the restricted demand and the fact that penalty was imposed under Rule 173Q rather than Section 11AC; equal penalty was not warranted, and the penalty was reduced. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124684