TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1107
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent places and sold subsequently to customers. In respect of goods stock-transferred to depots, the duty is paid by the respondent at the factory gate. The dispute in the present case relates to such stock transfer to depots made during the period April, 1997 to November, 1999. The Revenue noticed that in respect of some of the clearances made to depots, the duty was paid at prices lower than the prices prevalent contemporaneously at the depots at the time of clearances. The provisions of Section 4 read with Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975 was cited to take the view that duty was required to be paid for stock transfers to depots at the prices prevalent on such date at the depots. On these lines, differential duty was dema....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uch decision he prayed that the impugned order is not justified and required to be set aside. ii) Ld. DR referred to the definition of Section 4 prevalent at the relevant time. In particular, he referred to the Sub-Section 4(1)(b) and submitted that the goods were not sold at the factory gate and hence the value is to be ascertained in terms of prescribed Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975. Rule 4 of the said Rules specifically provides that the valuation shall be based on the value of such goods sold by the assessee for delivery at any other time nearest to the time of removal of goods under assessment. He also referred to the CBEC Circular No.251/85/96-CX dated 14.10.1996, in which it has been clarified, after the amendment in Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....transfer. He submitted that each such contract price may be considered as the price for one class of buyers which is sanctioned by Section 4(1)(a) Proviso (i). As such he justified the payment of duty at such lower price for contract sales and he submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 6. For ready reference, the provisions of Section 4 are reproduced below: "SECTION [4. Valuation of excisable goods for purposes of charging of duty of excise.- (1) Where under this Act, the duty of excise is chargeable on any excisable goods with reference to value, such value, shall, subject to the other provisions of this section, be deemed to be- (a) the normal price thereof, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the goods are generally not sold by him in the course of wholesale trade except to or through a related person, the normal price of the goods sold by the assessee to or through such related person shall be deemed to be the price at which they are ordinarily sold by the related person in the course of wholesale trade at the time of removal, to dealers (not being related persons) or where such goods are not sold to such dealers, to dealers (being related person), who sell such goods in retail; (b) Where the normal price of such goods is not ascertainable for the reason that such goods are not sold or for any other reason, the nearest ascertainable equivalent thereof determined in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) Where, in relation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gate to the depot, there is no sale but only a stock transfer. But duty is required to be paid at the time of clearance from the factory by virtue of Section 4(1)(ba). When goods are removed from the factory, it is deemed to be clearances of goods from the depots. Section 4(1)(a) defines normal price as the price for delivery at the time and place of removal since removal in this case is deemed to be the depot, the normal price will be the price at the depot at the time of clearance from the factory gate. 7. While there is no dispute to the legal interpretation of the issue as above, dispute has arisen on account of the fact that the appellant has more than one price for sales of the goods from the depot at any given date and time. There i....