TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (7) TMI 967
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion is that the appellants herein are manufacturing of jute products, jute bags and jute fabrics. The period in question in this appeal is from 1-3-94 to 28-2-97. The issue involved in this appeal is regarding valuation of the goods cleared during the relevant period by the assessee. The allegation in the show-cause notice is that the appellants had cleared the consignments to the consignment agents based upon the factory gate price of the clearance made to the independent buyers, but the consignment agents sold the said goods at higher price and sent back the amount to the appellants. Revenue wants to add this amount towards value of the goods and demand the differential duty. A show-cause notice was issued to the appellants. The appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e transactions to the consignment agents, there is always a difference either getting less or more than the value of clearance. After reading of Section 4 of Central Excise Rules, 1944, he submits that the place of removal included only the factory gate and warehouse of the manufacturers. For this proposition, he relies on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut v. Century Laminating Co. Ltd. reported in 2006 (198) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.). 6. As regards the clearances made in the 2nd period i.e. 28-9-96 to 28th February, 1997, it is his submission that the provision of Section 4 was amended indicating the premises of the consignment agents as the place of removal. It is his submission tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Excise, Nagpur reported in 2008 (223) E.L.T. 314 (Tri.-Mumbai), has held that any excess cash amount from that area has to be included in the factory gate prices. 8. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. 9. The issue involved in this case is regarding allegation of undervaluation of the consignments of jute and jute products cleared to the consignment agents by the assessee in two different periods i.e. 1-3-1994 to 27-9-1996 and 28-9-1996 to 28th February, 1997. 10. As regards, the clearance made during the 1st period, we find that there is no dispute as regards the factory gate prices. The said products were being cleared to the independent buyers. The provision of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... when there is a normal price of the goods which are already sold by the appellants to a buyer in the course of wholesale trade, it would become a normal price. There is no dispute in this case that the consignments cleared by the appellants to independent buyers at the factory gate, remained the same for the clearance made to the consignment agents. Post clearance price from the consignment agents, is sought to be applied for clearance for determining the differential duty, when there is no provision to consider the place of consignment agent's premises as place of removal. In the absence of specific provisions to consider the consignment agent's place as place of removal, during this period the price charged at consignment agents place ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....done when they are cleared from the factory to the consignment agents. The provisions clearly indicates that valuation of a clearance from factory gate to consignment agent needs to be done on the price charged at or about the same time, at consignment agent's place for discharge of duty. This particular provisions of law has not been followed by the appellants. In our considered opinion, the appellants should have discharged duty liability on the clearances to consignment agent based upon the price charged by and at consignment agents' premises at or about the same time. Since this needs to be considered on the factual matrix, dismissing the appellants' plea on this ground that there is no liability and we uphold the order of the adjudicat....