2019 (7) TMI 251

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nder Chapter 28, 54, 55 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the relevant period, they have transferred excisable goods to their depots on payment of appropriate excise duty however, alleging that the assessable value of the transferred goods were not determined correctly during the period July 2000 to February 2001 as they have not included the cost of transportation from factory to depot; duty was short paid to the extent of Rs. 17,03,456/-. Consequently, show cause notice was issued on 31.07.2001 for recovery of the said duty with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and penalty of Rs. 2.00 lakhs under Rule 173Q of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. Aggrieved by the said order they filed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Advocate refers to the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of CCE Kanpur v. LML Ltd. 2014 (303) ELT 130 (Tri-Del), Emerson Network Power (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE Mumbai 2017 (6) GSTL 321 (Tri-Mum) and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Nagpur v. Ispat Industries Ltd. 2015 (324) ELT 670 (SC). 4. Learned AR for the revenue reiterates the finding of the Learned Commissioner (Appeals). 5. We have carefully considered the submission advanced by both sides and perused the records. 6. We find undisputedly the definition of 'place of removal' has undergone change during the relevant period in dispute. Taking into consideration the definition of place of removal as was in force during the relevant period,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ave been permitted to be deposited without payment of duty and, as such, the place of removal did not include depot, premises of consignment agents or any other place or premises from where the goods after their clearance from the factory are to be sold. In view of this, when the goods during the period of dispute were sold after their clearance from the factory, from depots, notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, the assessable value would be the transaction value at the time and place of removal and hence the same would not include the cost of transportation from the factory to Depots. It is well settled law that in case of conflict between the Rules made by rule making authority under delegated le....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the Act except the circumstances in which the excisable goods are sold for delivery at a place other than the place of removal, then the value of such excisable goods shall be deemed to be the transaction value, excluding the cost of transportation from the place of removal upto the place of delivery of such excisable goods". From the combined reading of definition of place of removal and Rule 5 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, it is clear that in the transaction value in terms of Section 4(1)(a), the transportation from the place of removal upto the place of delivery of such excisable goods is excludable from the transaction value. At the relevant time, the place of removal was only factory gate or warehouse or any oth....