2017 (2) TMI 765

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for the Appellant Sh. Yogesh Agarwal, DR for the Respondent Per V. Padmanabhan The appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 18.10.2010. The appellant is a manufacturer of electrical wires and cables and are availing Cenvat credit on the inputs and capital goods. The appellant used to clear their goods through depot and in the case of price increase, pay the differential duty ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntial duty to the tune of Rs. 83,174/- along with payment of interest and penalty. When the order was challenged before commissioner (Appeals) the same was upheld. Hence, the present appeal. 2. With the above background we heard Mr. Kumar Vikram, Id. Counsel for the appellant as well as Shri Yogesh Agarwal, DR for the Revenue. 3. The counsel for the appellant relied upon the following decisi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the goods has taken place at depot. In such cases when goods are sold through depot, there is no sale at the time of removal of the goods from the factory gate. Section 4(3)(c)(iii) includes the depot as a place removal when excisable goods are sold from the depot after their clearance from the factory. Section 4 of the Central Excise Act provides for payment of Central Excise Duty on transaction....