TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 14
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellant pointed out that they are engaged in manufacture and clearance of goods on payment of excise duty. Learned Counsel pointed out that Revenue in a mistaken notion that they were clearing goods to their depots, issued show-cause notice demanding excise duty invoking Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of price of excisable goods) Rules, 2000. Learned Counsel argued that they are actually selling the goods at the factory gate and not clearing the same to their depots. Learned Counsel relies on the grounds of appeal, wherein it has been argued that they were selling the goods at factory gate to the dealer and dealers are neither depot nor branches of the appellant. He argued that the goods were sold at factory gate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpugned order. 4. We have gone through the rival submissions. A perusal of the defence made by the appellant before the original adjudicating authority vide letter dated 7.8.2014 shows that the appellant had admitted that they were making clearance to various consignment agents during the period April, 2009 to March, 2012. It has also been pointed out that the appellant had calculated the entire differential value, expenses, commission, cash discount etc. during the said period and worked out the duty payable which was paid by cash in part. Intimation was also sent to Revenue vide their letter dated 5.10.2012. It has been argued that since the entire details has been submitted by the appellant regarding clearances made to various consign....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s are being sold at factory gate. In para 3 of the statement of facts before Tribunal, the appellants have wrongly stated that in reply dated 7.8.2014 (filed before the original adjudicating authority) they had asserted that there was factory gate sale and transaction value at factory gate was available. It is totally incorrect and wrong assertion made by the appellant. 5. Now, we examine the law in this regard. Section 4 valuation of excisable goods for the purpose of charging of duty of excise under Central Excise Act, 1944, stipulates as under: - (1) Where under this Act, the duty of excise is chargeable on any excisable goods with reference to their value, then, on each removal of the goods, such value shall - ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....yer of the said goods are not related and the price is the sole consideration for the sale, the value shall be the normal transaction value of such goods sold from such other place at or about the same time and, where such goods are not sold at or about the same time, at the time nearest to the time of removal of goods under assessment. Rule 2(b) & (c) of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of price of excisable goods) Rules, 2000 (b) "normal transaction value" means the transaction value at which the greatest aggregate quantity of goods are sold; (c) "value" means the value referred to in section 4 of the Act; From the above narration, it is clear that the appellants have not produced any evidence whatsoever....