2007 (6) TMI 100

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Consignment Agents. Revenue proceeded against the appellants on the ground that they had not discharged their duty liability on the value of the goods in accordance with Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 for the period from 27-7-2000 to 19-1-2005. The original authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 5,06,029/- towards Central Excise Duty and Education Cess of Rs. 1,248/- under proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act. Interest under Section 11AB was demanded. Equal penalty under Section 11AC was imposed. 2.1 In respect of the second appellant M/s. Hariom Metal Tubes Pvt. Ltd., the issue involved is the same. The Original authority confirmed a demand of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....value, then, on each removal of the goods, such value shall - (a) in a case where the goods are sold by the assessee, for delivery at the time and place of the removal, the assessee and the buyer of the goods are not related and the price is the sole consideration for the sale, be the transaction value; (b) in any other case, including the case where the goods are not sold, be the value determined in such manner as may be prescribed. 5.2. A close reading of Section 4 reveals that when there is no sale from the factory gate, Section 4(1)(b) only will be applicable. Under Section 4(1)(b), Valuation Rules have to be adopted to arrive at the Transaction Value. In the present case, there is no dispute that in respect of the sales covere....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is squarely covered by the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Hyderabad, in the matter of M/s. Mahalakshmi Profiles Ltd. & Another v. CCE in Orders-in-Appeal Nos. 20, 21 /2006(H-I)CE dated 13-4-2006. He has also stated that the Commissioner (Appeals), in appellant's own case [Neeraj Pipes (P) Ltd.], in Order-in-Appeal No. 47/2006 (H-IV)CE dated 30-11-2006, has accepted in para 7 that "prior to 14-5-2003 duty is not sustainable" in view of the definition of 'Place of removal' and also in para 8 that "department had knowledge. Hence, extended period cannot be invoked". However, on the same date and in the case of the same appellant, the Appellate Commissioner took contradictory view that demand is sustainable on both counts. It is con....