TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (1) TMI 211
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ober 96. The appellants have another factory at Padi (Chennai). Goods manufactured in both the factories used to be removed to a packing unit (a "duty-paid godown") at Sholinghur, on payment of duty and, from this godown, the stock was transferred to their sales depot at Chennai, from where some sales were effected and the rest of the stock was transferred to their sales depots at Pune, Delhi and Calcutta. The appellants paid duty on the subject goods manufactured and removed from the Sholinghur factory during the above period on the basis of the price prevailing at the Chennai depot at the time of removal of the goods from factory. The department objected to this and took the view that the assessable value of the goods should be the price ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, further stock transfer from Chennai depot to other depots and subsequent sales from such other depots were immaterial to the valuation of the subject goods under the amended provisions of Section 4 of the Act. According to ld. Counsel, the Chennai depot price of like goods at the time of removal of the subject goods from the factory was the only price to be adopted as the basis of valuation of the goods in terms of proviso (ia) to Section 4(1)(a) read with the definition of "place of removal" under Clause (b) of sub-section (4) of the said Section. Ld. Counsel, in this connection, relies on the following decisions of the Tribunal. 1. Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd. v. CCE - 2001 (132) E.L.T. 671 2. Lipi Data Systems Ltd. v. CCE, Jai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eir clearance from the factory is also a "place of removal" for the purpose of valuation of such goods under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. "Place of removal" figures significantly in proviso (ia) to Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 4 also. This provision, which came into force on 28-9-1996, reads as under:- "(ia) Where the price at which such goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee is different for different places of removal, each such price shall, subject to the existence of other circumstances specified in clause (a), be deemed to be the normal price of such goods in relation to each such place of removal." Against the backdrop of the above provisions, we have got to analyse the undisputed facts of this case. The subj....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emoval" for the purpose of the above proviso, the depots at Pune, Delhi and Calcutta were only outlets for sale of goods, while the depot at Chennai was partly used as outlet for sale and partly used for stock transfer. The subject goods were, admittedly, sold from Pune, Delhi and Calcutta depots. Thus it appears, in the appellants' scheme of marketing, their goods were ordinarily sold at Pune, Delhi and Calcutta and not at Chennai. Here the prices charged by the Pune, Delhi and Calcutta depots should be taken as "price at which such goods are ordinarily sold" for the purpose of the above proviso. In this view of the matter, the decision recorded by the Commissioner appears to be based on a reasonable interpretation of proviso (ia) ibid....