TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (11) TMI 367
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve also been imposed. 2. Further, the appellants have also filed a miscellaneous application for including additional ground. The additional ground proposed to be included is that while determining the price of excisable goods on the basis of price prevailing at the end of consignment agent, such price should be on the basis of a date prior to the date of removal and on the basis of the price at which such goods have been sold subsequent to the date of removal. 3. Shri S. Suriyanarayanan, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that only when he started preparing the case, he noticed that in the worksheet prepared by the appellant and submitted by them at the request by the departmental officer, the appellant had simply followed the direction given by the departmental officers and consequently while preparing the worksheet, the price prevailing on a date nearest to the date of removal irrespective of the fact whether such date was prior to the date of removal or subsequent to date of removal was taken. He submits that if worksheet is prepared on the basis of the price prevailing on the date prior to the date of removal, the demand would come down subst....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orts during the periods from 1983 to 2002. Out of these 8 test reports, 6 test reports were by Departmental laboratory and 2 test reports were by SASMIRA and both of them opined that the disputed yarn is multifold and it is not texturised yarn. There was only one report which had given opinion that the yarn was texturised yarn which was discussed in detail and found to be incomplete in many aspects. It was also observed by the Tribunal that for the purpose of excisability, it is necessary that end product emerging from the process should be texturised yarn as defined in the HSN. 5.1 We have considered the submissions made by both sides. Admittedly, the appellants are selling the yarn as texturised yarn. While obtaining registration, they have obtained registration for manufacture of air texturised yarn. The appellants have not produced any evidence whatsoever in support of their contention that the process does not amount to manufacture except relying upon the decision of the Tribunal cited above. There was no test report available in this case. Further, there is no opinion whatsoever to show that from the same air texturised machine, different types of yarns cannot be produced.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oods are to be sold after their clearance from the place of removal and where the assessee and the buyer of the said goods are not related and the price is the sole consideration for the sale, the value shall be normal transaction value of such goods sold, from such other place at or about the same time and, where such goods are not sold at or about the same time, at the time nearest to the time of removal of goods under assessment." 6.1 From the above, it can be seen that Rule 7 of Valuation Rules provides that value shall be normal transaction value of such goods sold from place of removal at about the same time or at the time nearest to the time of removal of the goods under assessment. There is no discussion as to why the transaction value is not available under Section 4(1)(a) and what is the process adopted for arriving at the value under Rule 7 in the impugned order. We also find that the quantum of sales at factory gate was also not raised at the original adjudication stage. After considering all the issues which would be discussed in the subsequent paragraphs, we have come to the conclusion that the matter is required to be remanded. We consider it appropriate that duri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te or the subsequent date. 8. Last contention was that no suppression could have been invoked in this case. The submission was that there is no requirement of law to intimate the sales through consignment agent. Further, it was also argued very vehemently that the observations of the Commissioner that invoices were being received by the Company from the consignment agent, was a wrong finding. We find that this is so. However, the fact remains that the appellants were getting regular monthly returns from the consignment agent giving the details of all the sales effected by them and the appellants had a system of recording the same in the computer. Therefore, the appellants were definitely aware that the goods were being sold at a higher price. With the definition of place of removal being amended from 1996 to 2003 thrice and also amendments of the Section 4 itself, on 2-3 occasions during 1996 to 2003, the appellants considering their turnover, could not have been unaware of the provisions of Section 4. The amendment of place of removal made it clear that the price at which the goods are sold at the place of removal would be the price for valuation. It has to be remembered that e....