TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 718
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... impugned order and remanding the matter to original adjudicating authority. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants were clearing the goods to the consignment agents for further sale on the strength of invoices. The price indicated on the invoices was supposed to be the price in terms of Rule 7 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. It was claimed by the appellant that the goods have been cleared by following the said rules however the Revenue was of the opinion that the said rules have not been followed. 3. Earlier the show cause notice was issued on 23.08.2013 which was followed up by show cause notices on 06.02.2014, 19.08.2014, 21.01.2015, 27.01.2016 and 09.01.2017. The show ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10.1996. Commr. (A) held that the case needed to be remanded back to the original adjudicating authority for re-calculation of the demand, keeping in view the guidelines and illustrations given in the Circular mentioned at Sr. No. 3. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, revenue has filed the present appeal. In the grounds of appeal reliance has been placed on the order-in-appeal of Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of Show Cause Notice dated 02.09.2014 wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) had observed as follows: "7.2 I have carefully gone through the impugned order, appeal memorandum, and contention made at the time of personal hearing. In the present case, I find that appellant has selling their finished goods i.e. laminated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be remanded back to original adjudicating authority to recalculate the demand keeping in view the guideline and illustration given in above cited circulars. 11. In view of facts and discussion herein above, the Adjudicating Authority is directed to decide the case afresh after calculating the duty on the above line and in consonance with the Board Circular dated 14.10.1996 for which case is remanded back to the adjudicating authority after due compliance of the principles of natural justice and after proper appreciation of the evidences that may be put forth by the appellant before him................." 6. It has been argued that the consistent stand of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the earlier orders dated 06.02.2017 and 05....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rmissible under law. 8. We have considered rival submissions. We find that Commissioner (Appeals) in para 7 of his order recorded as follows : "7. Appellant had not disputed that the goods cleared to their depot/ consignment agent are to be valued as per the provisions of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. He is disputing that duty has not been calculated as per the rules 7 and said the circular dated 14.10.1996." It is seen that that the objections raised now by M/s Bloom & Dekor are in contradictions with the above submissions made before Commissioner (Appeals) and therefore, the same are rejected. 9. The appeal filed by Revenue is on the ground that the issue has already been decided in respect of earlier proceedings....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able goods are to be sold after their clearance from the facrary, from where such goods are removed; Rule 7 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of price of excisable goods) Rules, 2000, further stipulates as under: - Where the excisable goods are not sold by the assessee at the time and place of removal but are transferred to a depot, premises of a consignment agent or any other place or premises (hereinafter referred to as "such other place") from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the place of removal and where the assessee and the buyer of the said goods are not related and the price is the sole consideration for the sale, the value shall be the normal transaction value of such go....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he replies made by the appellant before the lower authorities that they had admitted the goods were sold from the premises of consignment agent. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the manner in which the value has been arrived at by the lower authorities." From the above order of Tribunal, it is seen that one of the reasons on the impugned order in the said case was upheld was the fact regarding sale of goods at factory gate is unsubstantiated and the same issue was not raised before original adjudicating authority or before the first appellate authority. In view of above the said issue was not allowed to be raised before the Tribunal. In the instant case, it is noticed that the issue regarding documents and the manner....