TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 349
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ure of excisable goods. They are also having a depot from where the goods are sold after clearance from the factory. For the purpose of assessment of goods at the time to clearance from factory, the appellant resorted to provisional assessment. Subsequently the appellant filed proposal for finalization of assessment and adopted the sale price of the highest aggregate quantity on the identical goods, for sale to a non-related buyer, on a date prior to the date of removal from the factory, as the assessable value. The Revenue however did not accept the said value and sought to assess at the sale value of the highest aggregate quantity of the goods of the same kind and quality, sold to non-related buyers, on the date nearest to the date from r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....old or would be sold shall be taken into account. In either case if there are series of sale at or about the same time, the normal transaction value for sale to independent buyer will have to be determined and taken as basis for valuation of goods at the time of removal from factory/warehouse. It follows from the Valuation that in such categories of cases also if the price charges is with reference to delivery at a place other than the depot. Etc., then the actual cost of transportation will not be taken to be a part of the transaction value and exclusion of such cost allowed on similar lines as discussed earlier, when sales are effected from factory gate/warehouse." 2.2. Ld. Counsel argued that the said Circular provides as follows: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(298) ELT 257 (Tri-Mumbai). 3.2. Ld. AR also relied on the appellant s own case reported in 2014 (307) E.L.T. 744 (Tri.-Mumbai) wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) had held that for the purpose of assessment the price of goods cleared from the factory either prior to or subsequent to the date of removal can be adopted. Ld. AR argued that this finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) has not been challenged by the appellant. 4. We have gone through the rival submissions. The CBEC has clarified the issue in following terms: SI No. Point of doubt Clarification 1. What is the scope of the term greatest aggregate quantity used in Rule 2(b) of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of clearance from the factory. The other interpretation sought by Revenue would perforce make all the clearances from the factory provisional and assessable price at the time of clearance from factory sale would always remain indeterminate. In these circumstances, interpretation adopted by the appellant appears to be proper. It is seen that Tribunal in the case of E.I. Du Point India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Bhuvalka Steel Industries Ltd.(supra) has held identical view. In case of E.I. Du Point India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) Tribunal has observed as follows: 6. The "normal transaction value" as per Rule 2(b) of the Valuation Rules means "the transaction value at which the greatest aggregate quantity of goods are sold." The Appellants have m....