TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 1521
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned Commissioner of Appeals covering two Orders-in-Original and they should have filed two separate appeals. Instead, they committed the mistake of filing only one. Due to incorrect appreciation of the procedures of the CESTAT there is delay and when this was found out they have filed the second appeal. Although the delay is inordinate considering that there is substantive case in the matter, I find that there is a case to condone the delay and accordingly condone the delay. At this stage, it is pointed out that there is another Appeal No. E/21472/2015 which was also filed by the Department against the same appellant on the same issue and both matters may be considered together. 2. The issue in brief, is that the appellant is the manufactu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from the goods are sold as a place of removal with effect from 28.09.96. 15.2 The assessee have raised invoices while doing stock transfer from the factory gate and duties have been paid at factory gate itself. Subsequently, the material has been transferred to depots where Freight Rebates were extended to the customers/dealers. The refund claims were prepared after raising invoices at depot clearances. 15.3 As per amended section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 with effect from 28.09.96, the value of such goods (goods intended to be so/d through depots after transferring to depots) has to be determined at the factory gate itself as per Board's Circular F.No.251/85/96-CX, dated 14.10.96. In the present cases, the assessments were mad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the ultimate buyer at the time of clearance of the goods. Giving subsequent discounts in a final assessment value and granting refund thereof would amount to unjust enrichment. 15.6 The Board's Circular F.No.354/81/2000-TRU, dated 30.06.2000 is not relevant since the claims in question relate to the period from February, 99 to April, 2000 (Six refund claims). 15.7 In the present cases, the value adopted at the time of clearances of goods at the factory gate satisfies the section 4 value and the assessments are final." 3. Aggrieved, the appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) who, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court [2014 (306) ELT (344)-AP] and also on the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in....