TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 1921
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtation charges but by mistake the said amount in invoice was shown as Depot Charges. Similarly, in the case of sale from Ludhiana Depot, the appellant charged an amount 1% of gross value showing the said amount as handling charges, which is in fact the transportation cost from the Depot to buyer's premises Show Cause Notice dated 18.06.2004 was issued that why the amount so collected, during the period from 01.07.2000 to 31.03.2004, should not be included in the assessable value. The Show Cause Notice also alleged that the appellant had contravened Rule 7 of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules 2000 read with Section 4(3)(d) of Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of Basic Excise Duty to the tune of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....des his agent: (b) persons shall be deemed to be "related" if- (i) they are inter-connected undertakings; (ii) they are relatives; (iii) Amongst them the buyer is a relative and a distributor of the assessee, or sub-distributor of such distributor; or (iv) They are so associated that they have interest, directly or indirectly, in the business of each other. Explanation.- In this clause- (i) "inter-connectd undertaking" shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (g) of section 2 of the Monoolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (64 of 1969); and (ii) "relative" shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (41) of section 2 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d order, the Joint Commissioner has held that the appellant did not adhere to the provisions of the Rule-7 of the valuation Rule However. In the instant case this shows that the Joint Commissioner has taken the contrary view in the valuation of subject goods. The facts of clearance to Depots were duly reflected in the Central Excise invoices and E.R-1. This shows that the Department has nothing to dispute on the assessable value of the clearance from the factory gate. In the Board's Circular No. 251/85/96-CX dated 14/10/1996 it was clarified that "if the factory is at Bombay and the storage depot is at Ahmadabad, then for a consignment for Ahmadabad Depot, cleared for Bombay factory on, say 1st January, the price at which an earlier consign....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ystem Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, reported in 2001 (130) ELT 91 (Tri.-Del) it has been held that whenever the goods manufactured by the appellant at their factory at Udaipur were removed for subsequent clearances from Mumbai, they have to be assessed at the price prevalent on the date of removal from the factory. In Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in 2006 (199) ELT 112 (Tri.-Del). It has been held that it is clear from the terms of the Section itself that valuation of a consignment under clearance is to be made on the basis of sale price prevailing on the data of removal at the place of removal (Depot). This position remains clarified by the Board as well as decided by the H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the same was not reflected in the Invoices. 2.Shri K.S. Ravi Shankar, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri R.V. Ramakrishnappa, JDR appeared on behalf of the Department. 3.The learned Advocate urged that the lower authority has lost sight of the basic and fundamental principle that excise is not a law which taxes/transportation or freight to excise duty, but subjects manufacture or production to the duty. He said whether the transportation charges were shown separately in the invoices or were claimed the actuals or no excise duty can be levied on them. It was also contended that even if it is assumed that there is a violation of Rule 5, the rule is only procedural. The learned Advocate relied on ....