TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (11) TMI 367
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the provisions of Section 4(1)(b) of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 ('Valuation Rules' for short). Penalty of equal amount has been imposed on the company and penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on Shri Shrikant Mundra, Director of the Company and Rs. 1 lakh on Shri P.G. Sharma, authorized signatory of the company, have 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 pri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Central Excise Act and therefore no duty is attracted. (b) Out of the total turnover of more than Rs. 32 crores during the relevant period, an amount of more than Rs. 28 crores turnover was from sale at factory gate and ex-factory price was available at the time of removal of the goods and therefore that price can be taken into consideration for deciding the assessable value in respect of removal to consignment agent. (c) Value for the purpose of charging duty should be based on the date of sale on a date prior to the date of removal from the factory gate in case of sales by consignment agent. (d) There was no suppression in view the fact that there was no admission that the invoices were destroyed or received by the appellant company ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uct 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. We also find that the appellant have submitted certificate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sue, the contention of the appellant is that there was price available at the factory gate and therefore the method adopted by the department for arriving at differential duty is wrong. Before we proceed further, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant Valuation Rules. Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods), Rules, 2000 : "Rule 2. In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires, - (a) ... (b) "normal transaction value" means the transaction value at which the greatest aggregate quantity of goods are sold" "Rule 7. Where the excisable goods are not sold by the assessee at the time and place of removal but are transferred to a depot, premises of a consignment agent or any other place or premi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of availability of the price at the factory gate and its implication as also applicability of Valuation Rules. 7. Next point that was raised was the appellant had given worksheet on the basis of direction given by the officers that the price on a date nearest to the date of removal at the factory gate in respect of sales by consignment agent should be taken irrespective of the fact whether such date is prior to the date of removal from the factory gate or later. Rule 7 of Valuation Rules, 2000 provides that the value has to be determined as it exists at the time nearest to the time of removal of the goods under assessment. We do not find any support from this Rule to support the contention of the appellant that such nearest time has to be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een 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 ....