TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (8) TMI 259
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aitan, learned Senior Advocate along with Smt. Sanyukta Gupta for the respondent company. 2. Shri Raha, learned S.D.R. for the Revenue submits that in the present cases, the value of the goods which are removed from the factory to be sold at different depots, is determined at the time of removal of the goods from the factory. Therefore, there is no scope for re-determination of the value on the b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pondent company. In the present cases, the respondents paid the excess duty when the goods were cleared from the factory, having been sold at lesser value from the depots. Therefore, the excess duty paid by the respondents has to be refunded to them. Hence, he contends that there is no infirmity in the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals), and also prays that by upholding the Order of the Commissio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... contrary to legal provisions under Rule 7 of the valuation Rule 2000. The Rule 7 provides that under the circumstances of the case the normal transactional value of any consignment may often have to be ascertained from the depot price prevailed even before its clearance from the factory. Only requirement under the law is to ascertain the value of depot sale at the time of ex-factory clearance, an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts have to bear the burden of excess duty paid on the ex-factory value of the goods that is higher than the actual transaction value." I also find that the Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is elaborate and reasoned. It is based on legal provisions of Rule 7 of Central Excise (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. In the present cases, the Department has realised the d....