TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1593
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by Appeal No 1 M/s. PGO Processors E/53087/2018 2 M/s Suzuki Textiles Ltd. E/53088/2010 3 Shri GS Sankhla Director of M/s. PGO Processors E/53004/2018 4 Shri OP Nawal Director of M/s. PGO Processors E/53005/2018 5 Shri P C Jain Director of M/s. PGO Processors E/53006/2018 6 Shri Saileela Processors Pvt Ltd. E/53007/2018 7 Shri Mahaveer Heda of M/s Motia Spinners Pvt. Limited E/53008/2018 8 Shri DL Laddha, GM of M/s. Suzuki Processors E/53009/2018 9 Shri R K Maheshwari, MD of M/s. Suzuki Processors E/53010/2018 10 Shri Shiv Charan Heda, POroprietor, M/s Ajay Explosives. E/53011/2018 1.2 By the impugned order following has been held: ORDER A) In respect of SCN No. V(55)15/Off/96/98/322 dated 15.01.1999 covered by pe-remand ΟΙΟ No. 18/2012/C.Ex/JPR-II-Commr dt. 30.03.2012 (1) I confirm the demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs 1,69,53,793/-(Rupees One Crore Sixty-Nine Lacs Fifty-Three Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety-three only) against M/s Suzuki Processors (A unit of Suzuki Textiles Ltd.). Village Gudda, Teh: Mandal, District: Bh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act 2017; (9) I impose a penalty of Rs 2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakh only) upon Shri P.C.Jain, Director of M/s PGO Processors Pvt. Ltd., Village Gudda, Teh: Mandal, Distt. Bhilwara under erstwhile Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 174 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017; (10) I impose a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakh only) each upon Shri D.L. Laddha, General Manager, M/s Suzuki Processors and R.S.Toshniwal, General Manager of M/s PGO Processors Pvt. Ltd under erstwhile Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 174 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017; (11) I impose a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakh only) each upon Shri O.P. Nawal and Shri G.S. Sankhla, both the Directors of M/s PGO Processors Pvt. Ltd., Bhilwara, under erstwhile Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 174 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017; (12) I impose a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each upon Shri Shiv Charan Heda, Proprietor, M/s Ajay Explosive, Bhilwara and Shri Mahaveer Heda, Director of M/s Motia Spinners (P) Ltd., GULABPURA, Distt. B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....D-Rs. 19,74,769/-+AED(ST)-Rs. 13,16,512/-) against M/s PGO Processors Pvt. Ltd., Village : Gudda, Teh: Mandal, Distt. Bhilwara, under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise(Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 and read with Section 174 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017; (ii) I impose a penalty of Rs.32,91,281/-upon M/s PGO Processors Pvt. Ltd., Village Gudda, Teh: Mandal, Distt. Bhilwara under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 174 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017. However, I refrain from imposing penalty upon M/s PGO Processors Pvt. Ltd.. under erstwhile Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 as sufficient penalty under Section 11AC has been imposed upon them. (iii) I order recovery of interest on the confirmed duty of Rs. 32,91,281/from M/s PGO Processors Pvt. Ltd., Village Gudda, Teh: Mandal, Distt. Bhilwara as per the provisions of Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act. 1944 read with Section 174 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017; (c) In respect of show cause notice C. No.V(52)17/PD....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....da, Teh: Mandal, Distt. Bhilwara as per the provisions of Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 174 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017. (D) In respect of SCN NO. V(55)15/50/2011/8082 dated 28.11.2001 covered by pre-remand OIO No. 27/2012 (i) I confirm the demand of central excise duty of Rs.5,97,002/-(BED- Rs. 2,98,501/- + AED-Rs. 2,98,501/-) under Section 11A of Central Excise Act read with Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules 1944 and read with Section 174 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017and order for its recovery from M/s Suzuki Synthetics (P) Ltd., Village Gudda, Post Mandal, District Bhilwara (Rajasthan). (ii) I order for recovery of interest from M/s Suzuki Synthetics (P) Ltd., Village Gudda, Post Mandal, District Bhilwara (Rajasthan) @ 24% under erstwhile Rule 173G (1) (d) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with rule 8(3) of Central Excise Rules (No.2) 2001 and read with Section 174 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017on the amount of Central Excise duty of Rs.5,97,002/- (iii) I impose penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakh only) on M/s Suzuki Synthetics (P) Ltd., Village Gudda ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o 7 of the table given above, is to be recovered from M/s Suzuki Processors (A unit of Suzuki Textiles Ltd.) Village: Gudda, Distt. Bhilwara, under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 174 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017. (iii) I do not impose any penalty upon M/s Suzuki Processors (A unit of Suzuki Textiles Ltd.) Village: Gudda, Distt. Bhilwara under erstwhile Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and केन्द्रीय / or Section 11 AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. 2.1 The Appellant 2 is a public limited company which carried on weaving and processing at one premises at Village Gudda. The processing arm was run as M/s Suzuki Processors, described throughout as "a unit of Suzuki Textiles Ltd." The process-house cost Rs. 594.21 lakh, was financed by IDBI and the Bank of Rajasthan, and stood mortgaged to them. 2.2. Its capacity was 1.8 million metres a month. Of this, 1.5 to 1.7 million metres were the Appellant's own woven fabric; 0.1 to 0.3 million metres belonged to outsiders. On its own goods the Appellant paid duty on sale price under Section 4(1)(a); on the outsiders'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated from the Appellant 2, and returned by the same route on 29.09.1997. Neither intermediary carries on money-lending. 2.9 From the statement recorded of the concerned persons / Officials/Director also, it transpired that Appellant 1 did not bring in any funds for the operations of the process-house. The entire working capital funds were provided by Appellant 2 and they alone had the financial involvement required for running the process-house and accordingly, exercised financial control on the process-house through various means. The rent under the agreement was not paid through their own funds but by credit entry in the accounts of Appellant 2. Salaries, wages, power, fuel, coal, raw materials, freight all were financed with funds from Appellant 2. It thus appeared that the transfer of assets on lease to Appellant 1 was a bogus arrangement entered into with a view to earning benefit from excise evasion. Appellant 1 did not have the capacity and means to operate the process-house in the capacity of a manufacturer of their own account. 2.10 Thus investigations concluded that Appellant 2 was a manufacturer within the contemplation of Sec. 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had also rendered themselves liable for penalty 2.12 The above notice was decided vide OIO No. 18/2012/C.Ex/JPR-IICommr dt. 30.03.2012 by the Commissioner, Central Excise Jaipur-II. BRIEF FACTS OF THE SCN NO.S V(52)17/PD/45/97/1507 dt. 21.08.98; V(52)17/PD/45/97/1868 dt. 21.09.98; V(52)17/PD/45/97/3272 dt. 21.12.98; and V(52)17/PD/45/97/5733 dt. 26.02.99 2.13 Appellant 1, had short paid the Central Excise duty as they had been receiving grey man made fabrics from Appellant 1 for processing in their factory and clearing the same to back to them after processing on payment of Central Excise duty. The assessee had claimed various deductions from the sale price of Appellant 1 to arrive at the assessable value of man made fabrics in accordance with the price declarations filed but the deductions so claimed did not appear to be admissible to them in terms of the section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 since the duty was leviable on the final sale price and all the expenditure incurred up to the place of removal were to be included in the assessable value. 2.14 Appellant 1 had short paid the Central Excise duty and also appeared to have contravened the provisions of Rule 173C r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant 1 was not the manufacturer Notification No.36/98- CE(NT) and 42/98-CE(NT) both dated 10.12.98 were not applicable to Appellant 1 as they did not appear to be an independent processor. A show causes notice dated 31.05.99 was issued to Appellant 1 calling upon to show cause as to why they should not be denied the status of an 'independent processor as defined in the notification No.36/98-CE(NT) and No.42/98-CE(NT) both dated 10.12.98 in view of the allegations made in the show cause notice dated 15.01.99. 2.18 This notice was decided vide OIO NO. 26/2012 dated 30.03.2012 by the Commissioner C. Ex Jaipur wherein it was observed that in the findings in the Order-in-Original No.18/2012/C-Ex/JPR-II- Commissioner dated 30-32012 in respect of show cause notice C. No. V(55)15/off/96/98/322 dated 15.01.99 it was inter-alia held that Appellant 2 were manufacturer within the contemplation of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944, and that Appellant 1, did not hold the position of a manufacturer within the meaning of Sec. 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and accordingly, Central Excise Registration Certificate S. R. No. BHL-II/Chap.51.52,54 & 55/3/97-98 dated 03-06 1997 iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....observed that 12 appeals in respect of OIO No. 18/2012, 2225/2012, 26/2012, 28-42/2012 and 27/2012 all dated 30.3.2012 were filed against the impugned orders by the manufacturer as well as employees of the manufacturing companies and in addition, 8 appeals were filed by the Revenue against the same impugned orders and all the appeals were being disposed of through this common order. Further in para 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the order it was held as under: 11. Heard both sides and perused the records. 12. The case of the department revolves around the question whether the commercial arrangement subsisting between the parties is to be considered as a facade engineered with the intention to evade central excise duty. After leasing out the processing unit duly stands paid on the processed fabric on the basis of cost of goods plus processing charges as has been held by the Apex Court in Ujagar Prints case. It is the claim of the appellant that leasing out of land, building, plant and machinery have been carried out between two completely separate legal entities. Further, such leasing is for commercial consideration and the department cannot stand in judgment over such comme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the status of BSL and PFTL as lessee, manufacturers. 9 In view of what has been stated above, the findings in the impugned order of adjudication that the lease agreement was sham, that RSWML was the real manufacturer of fabrics at Mordi and that there was short levy of duty cannot be sustained. In the facts of this case, demand could also not be raised for the extended period, invoking proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act as the case did not involve fraud, suppression of facts etc. mentioned in the proviso to the Section. No penalty could also be imposed in the present case since no duty evasion had taken place on account of processing of fabrics for RSWML by the BSL and PFTL. Consequently all the appeals are allowed after setting aside the impugned order." 14. We have carefully considered the above decision cited by the appellants. Prima facie, it appears to us that there is lot of similarities in the facts and circumstances of that case with the facts of the present case. There are also certain differences. The comparison chart has been submitted by the learned Counsel between the cited decision and the present case. From this, we find that the v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... towards grading expenses, cartage and handling charges, brokerage and interest on stock, all of which are in relation to activities subsequent to clearance of goods after clearance should be admissible. Reliance placed on the following decisions: ○ Rajasthan Spg & Weaving Mills Ltd. ○ Savita Chemicals Ltd. [2000 (119) ELT 394 (T)] affirmed at {2001 (130) ELT A262 (SC)] ○ Nirlon Ltd. [2005 (190) ELT 234 (T-Mum)] ⮚ Liablity to pay duty cannot be imposed upon the appellant 6, as he is not the manufacturer of the goods which he had taken over from the Appellant 1 when he purchased the said premises along with the excisable goods in stock. Reliance is placed on the following decisions: ○ Sree Aravindh Steels Ltd [2007 (216) ELT 332 (T-Chennai)] ○ Birla Corporation Ltd. [2005 (186) ELT 266 (SC)]; ○ Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. [2024 (86) GSTL 310 (All)] ○ Radhasoami Satsang [1992 (1) SCC 659] ○ R C Tobacco Pvt Ltd. [2005 (188) ELT 129 (SC)] ○ Rana Girder Ltd. [2013 (295) ELT 12 (SC)] ○ Ambuja Electro Castings Ltd. [2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt; and if the duty falls, the Revenue must bear the fall. What he may not do is keep the mill, the coal, the current, the men, the money and the profit, and pay the duty of a man who has parted with all of them. ⮚ RSWM was not affirmed on the sham question; the Supreme Court assumed the contrary and decided on revenue neutrality, which this Appellant does not and cannot demonstrate. ⮚ The reasoning of the Tribunal in RSWM rested on an independent share of 40% and on lessees which bore their own end of the bargain. Neither condition exists here, and the Appellant's own contention reduces the independent share to between 6% and 15%. ⮚ The case is one of convergence, and convergence is the test the Supreme Court applied in Supreme Washers, where the facts "cumulatively" established interdependence. The appeal's method of answering each fact alone would have decided Supreme Washers the other way. ⮚ The findings are in substance admitted. The Appellant 2, own grounds concede that Appellant 1 had ○ no power connection, ○ no diesel quota and no coal quota ○ the rent was di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ○ imposed under Rule 226 the maximum the Rule allows, being Rs. 2,000/-. ○ no penalty at all on the fifteen notices. ○ interest on eight of them because they had not proposed it. ○ extended cum-duty benefit to a notice which had not given it. ○ allowed 4.25% for grading loss on his own initiative. ○ An order which forgoes every discretionary power available to it, and grants reliefs the notice did not propose, is not an order of excess. ⮚ The co-noticee appeals adopt this appeal by their first ground and raise nothing independent upon the merits. They fall with it, save as to the penalty grounds, which are answered in Part V. ⮚ Revenue concedes nothing in this appeal. Every ground, including the alternative grounds on quantification, is resisted on the record and on the law. Where the Appellant claims an exemption it is put to strict proof, the burden lying wholly upon it; where it claims a deduction it is CE Appeal Nos. E/53004-53011, E/53087 and E/53088 of 2018EX[DB] ⮚ met by binding authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court; and where it claims fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pect of the appellant 1 the demands have been made against him by the show cause notices as 21.08.1998, 21.09.1998, 21.12.1998 and 26.12.1999 for the period 26.02.1998 to 15.12.1998. The demands so made by these show cause notices have been confirmed against the appellant 1 observing as follows: B. Show cause notice C No V(55) 15/ OFF/96/98/Pt I/3450 dated 31.05.1999 issued to M/s PGO Processors Pvt Ltd, Vill-Gudda, Tehsil-Mandal, Distt-Bhilwara 74. The limited issue that is for decision before me in the instant case is as to whether M/s PGO Processors Pvt. Ltd., Village Gudda, Teh: Mandal, District: Bhilwara (Raj) could be treated as an independent processor' as defined in the Notification No. 36/98-CE dated 10.12.98 and under explanation III of the Notification No.42/98-CE(NT) dated 10.12.98. 75. I have already given findings in respect of the Show Cause Notice C.No. V(55)15/OFF/96/98/322 dated 15.01.99 wherein it is inter alia held that M/s Suzuki Processors, Bhilwara were manufacturer within the contemplation of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944, and accordingly they were liable to pay duty in respect of fabrics processed on their account i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e writ petition was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court by order dated 22.04.99 by directing the Department to allow clearances of goods by PGO on provisional basis ton payment of maximum duty as per Sub-Clause (ii) of the Clause 1 of Notification No. 36/98-CE till the question of applicability of the notification to PGO was determined by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-Il after giving adequate and proper opportunity of hearing in accordance with law. 77. In view of the discussion and following my findings given above in respect of show cause notice C.No. V(55)15/off/96/98/322 dated 15.01.99, leading to the conclusion that M/s Suzuki Processors, Bhilwara were manufacturer within the contemplation of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944, and that M/s PGO Processors (P) Ltd., Bhilwara did not hold the position of a manufacturer within the meaning of Sec. 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and accordingly, Central Excise Registration Certificate S.R.No.BHL-II/Chap.51,52,54 & 55/3/97-98 dated 03-06 1997 issued to PGO, has been held to be revocable under Rule 174(11) of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944, I am of the considered opinion that in the insta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rice declaration filed during 26.02.98 to 15.12.98. 80 It was the contention of the assessee that they as job processors had not accepted the payment of duty on such price though they were paying duty on such price under protest and therefore levy of duty on such price is still in dispute 81. As mentioned above, a Show Cause Notice C.No.V(55)15/OFF/96/98/322 dated 15.1.1999 was issued to M/s Suzuki Processors (A unit of Suzuki Textiles Ltd.), Village Gudda, Teh: Mandal, District: Bhilwara proposing inter alia demand of Rs.2,25,37,010/- on the ground that M/s Suzuki had floated a dummy unit in the name & style of M/s PGO Processors (P) Ltd., Bhilwara with an intent to evade central excise duty and that Suzuki was a manufacturer within the contemplation of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, in respect of the fabrics processed on their behalf in the process house during the period when the process house was leased out to M/s PGO Processors (P) Ltd., Bhilwara and accordingly they were liable to pay duty in respect of fabrics processed on their account in the Process-house on the basis of sale price of such fabrics in terms of Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and Back сан Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. For better appreciation, the relevant provisions of the old Section 4, which are applicable in the present case are reproduced below "Old Section 4: Section 4.Valuation of excisable goods for purposes of charging of duty of excise. - (1) Where under this Act, the duty of excise is chargeable on any excisable goods with reference to their value, such value, shall, subject to the other provisions of this Section, be deemed to be - (a) the normal price thereof, that is to say, the price at which such goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee to a buyer in the course of wholesale trade for delivery at the time and place of removal, where the buyer is not a related person and the price is the sole consideration for the sale Provided that- (i) where, in accordance with the normal practice of the wholesale trade in such goods, such goods are sold by the assessee at different prices to different classes of buyers (not being related persons) each such price shall, subject to the existence of the other circumstances specified in clause (a), be deemed to be the normal price of su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee upto the date of delivery on account of storage charges, outward handling charges, interest on inventories (stocks carried by the manufacturer after clearance), charges for other services after delivery to the buyer, namely after sales service and marketing and selling organization expenses including advertisement expenses cannot be deducted. It will be noted that advertisement expenses, marketing and selling organization expenses and after sales service promote the marketability of the article and enter into its value in the trade. Where the sale in the course of wholesale trade is effected by the assessee through its sales organization at a place or places outside the factory gate, the expenses incurred by the assessee upto the date of delivery under the aforesaid heads cannot, on the same grounds, be deducted. But the assessee will be entitled to a deduction on account of the cost of transportation of the excisable article from the factory gate to the place or places where it is sold. The cost of transportation will include the cost of insurance on the freight for transportation of the goods from the factory gate to the place or places of delivery." In the cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ling/grading expenses and interest on stock, are permissible deductions, being post removal expenses, is not tenable. Accordingly, hold that the said deductions are not allowable to the assessee. Other two deductions which have been sought to be denied are (1) Value loss @ 4.25% and (2) Brokerage @ Rs.1 per metre in respect of suiting fabric/1.5% in respect of shirting fabrics. 86. Now, I examine, the said two deductions claimed by the assessee in their respective price lists. I am dealing with these deductions separately also for the reason that in the pre-remand OIO deductions on both the said accounts were allowed. Value loss @ 4.25%: 87. I find that fabric in Lump form is bigger in size length and not having even length. To make it saleable/marketable, the fabric is to be inspected and graded which means after inspection of fabrics, fabrics are to be cut in required size/length i.e. in THAN(average length of 12 Meters), Safari cut (average of 2.40 Meters) and Trouser length (average length of 1.20 Meters). Usually fabric of these sizes / length THANS are sold in Market. During this process, certain loss is inevitable i.e. there is certainly loss of fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al sales price including such brokerage. The Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Deekeens Polyesters P. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Surat reported at 2009 (234) E.L.T. 129 (Tri-Ahmd.) has held that brokerage to agents has to be held as part of the assessable value. The relevant para 4 of the said order is reproduced below: *4. The second disputed issue relates to as to whether the brokerage offered to the agents who procured the orders for the appellants are required to be added in the assessable value or not. The appellant have relied upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s. Nirlon Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-V (2005 (190) E.L.T. 334 (Tri. Mum.)], in support of their contention that brokerage to intending agents is a permissible deduction. On the other hand, Id. DR relies upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of M/s. Coromandel Fertilisers Ltd. v. UOI & others [1984 (17) E.L.T. 607 (S.C.)] holding that the commission paid to agents cannot be treated as trade discounts and hence is not deductible. To the same effect is the Tribunal's decision in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad v. Patel Detergents [1996 (87) E.L.T. 546 (Tri.)] and in the case of Precision Tooli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....493 Brokerage 28,77,785 Interest on stock 57,03,404 Total 2,21,78,61 2 Total 18956802 7020828 11935974 90. Thus, I hold that duty of excise (BED+ AED(ST)), as mentioned in column No. 9 of the above table, against each show cause notice is liable to be recovered from PGO in terms of Section 11A(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise(Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 alongwith interest in accordance with the provisions of Section 11AB ibid read with Section 174 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017. I also hold that by not filing the price lists and not making payment of duty in accordance with law, PGO have also rendered themselves liable for penal action under Section 11AC read with Rule 173 Q of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 174 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017. 4.4 Appellant 1 has challenged the above determination of duty by referring to para 81 of the above order and argued that once the adjudicating authority records the finding that the Appellant is not ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....valorem. Having considered the facts and the circumstances of the case, we are unable to accept this submission. Excise is a duty on manufacture or production. But the realisation of the duty may be postponed for administrative convenience to the date of removal of goods from the factory. Rule 9A of the said rules merely does that. That is the scheme of the Act. It does not, in our opinion, make removal be the taxable event. The taxable event is the manufacture. But the liability to pay the duty is postponed till the time of removal under rule 9A of the said Rules. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory v. Supdt. of Central Excise, [1986] 23 ELT 3 13, where it was decided that the words 'as being subject to a duty of excise' appearing in s. 2(d) of the Act are only descriptive of the goods and not to the actual levy. 'Excisable goods", it was held, do not become non-excisable goods merely by the reason of the exemption given under a notification. This view was also taken by the Madras High Court in Tamil Nadu (Madras State) Handloom Weavers Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he excisable goods to independent buyers are includible in the assessable value as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Rubber Factory [1995 (77) ELT 433 (SC)]. The decision in the case of Savita Chemicals Ltd. Relied upon by the appellant is clearly distinguishable as it is respect of packing and repacking of the goods and tribunal held that the value of the goods need to be determined on the value of the goods in the form which they are cleared. That decision in case of Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. [2007 (218) ELT 641 (SC)], also is distinguishable as the value in that case was being determined on the basis of the comparable goods and not on the basis of the expenses claimed as deduction. The impugned order records the reason for taking view that is not in accordance with the decision of Nirlon. We are in agreement with the reason given. 4.7.1 Thus we do not find any merits in the submissions made by the Appellant in respect of the claim of deductions for arriving at the assessable value. Thus we uphold the demand made against the appellant 1 by the impugned order in respect of these four show cause notices, along with the interest. 4....