TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 292
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant. 2. Sh. Sandeep Sachdeva, Chartered Accountant appeared on behalf of the appellants and submits that the matter be decided on its own merits. 3. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 4. Considering the facts in the appellant s own case for the earlier period, on identical issue reported in 2013(291) ELT 115 (Tri. Del), the matter was came for consideration and this Tribunal has observed as under:- "8. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it would be useful to have look upon the relevant provisions of law dealing with valuation of excisable goods for the purpose of charging excise duty. 9. Section 4 (1) in the Central Ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anufacture of the excisable goods; (ii) a warehouse or any other place on premises wherein the excisable goods have been permitted to be deposited without 3[payment of duty;] [(iii) a depot, premises of a consignment agent or any other place or premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory;] from where such goods are removed; [(cc) "time of removal", in respect of the excisable goods removed from the place of removal referred to in sub-clause (iii) of clause (c), shall be deemed to be the time at which such goods are cleared from the factory;] (d) transaction value means the price actually paid or payable for the goods, when sold, and includes in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... advert to the facts of this case. It is undisputed that the appellant received payment of Rs. 22,02,603/- against transit insurance premium whereas he paid only Rs. 6.17 Lakhs against transit insurance premium. This imply that the appellant has charged more than 300% of the transit insurance premium from his buyer. Thus, transaction on the face of it is highly unnatural and is against the norms of the trade practice. The only inference which can be drawn from such an abnormal transaction is that the price paid at the time of delivery was not the sole consideration for sale and the appellant with the aid of buyers have evaded excise duty by issuing invoices/bills showing lower transaction value and getting compensated by indirectly receivin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....side. The legal position which emerges from the aforesaid judgment is that the duty of excise as a tax on the manufacturer and not a tax on profit made by a dealer on transportation or insurance etc. This judgment however has not considered and analysed the scope of section 4(1)9a0 which provides that sale price at the time of removal of goods is transaction value for the purpose of charging excise duty with rider that the assessee and the buyer are not related to each other and the price is the sole consideration for sale. In that instant case, in view of the discussion above, it is evident that the price charged at the time of removal was not the sole consideration for sale but price has been deflated in the grab of providing tra....