TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (1) TMI 211
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry and cleared on payment of duty from October 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 assessab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....goods from the factory. In such circumstances, 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)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lace or premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their 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 abov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot. The question is whether these depots are the appropriate ''places of removal" 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 Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be valued under the amended provisions is after its removal from factory, cleared from a depot, such depot has to be chosen as "place of removal." In the instant case, the goods were admittedly sold from the depots at Pune, Delhi and Calcutta. No part of the consignment was sold from the Chennai depot. We have applied the cited case law to the facts of this case. The Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Prabhat Zarda Factory Limited (supra) also supports the Revenue's view in this case. 7. For the reasons noted, we endorse the view taken by the Commissioner insofar as the valuation of the goods is concerned. The Commissioner has also, partly accepted the assessee's plea of limitation. What remains to be considered is wheth....