quicitation>
C.L. Mahar#Rachna Gupta#21CE1010MiscellaneousMANURachna Gupta,TRIBUNALS2018-11-2121649,21650 -->
MANU/CE/0518/2018
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
Excise Appeal No. E/50301/2015-EX [DB] [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 212/RPR-I/2014 dated 10.09.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, Raipur], Excise Appeal No. E/54464/2015-EX [DB] [Arising out of Order in Appeal No. BHO-EXCUS-002-APP-161-15-16 dated 10.08.2015 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, Raipur], Excise Appeal No. E/52352/2016-EX [DB] [Arising out of Order in Appeal No. BHO-EXCUS-002-APP-400-15-16 dated 10.03.2016 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, Raipur] and Excise Appeal No. E/51245/2017-EX [DB] [Arising out of Order in Appeal No. BHO-EXCUS-002-APP-011-17-18 dated 05.04.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, Raipur] and Final Order Nos. 53284-53287/2018
Decided On: 15.11.2018
Appellants: Vandana Global Limited Vs. Respondent: C.C.E., Raipur
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
C.L. Mahar, Member (T) and Rachna Gupta ORDER
Rachna Gupta, Member (J)
1. This order disposes of the 4 appeals. Issue being common to all of them, the details of 4 of these appeals are as follows:-
2. The appellants herein are aggrieved of respective Order-in-Appeals.
3. The relevant facts for the purpose are that the appellants are engaged in manufacture of sponge iron, ingots, billets and silicon manganese. They are availing the credit of Cenvat duty paid on inputs, capital goods and Service Tax paid on input services in terms of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR herein). During the course of scrutiny of ER-I Return of the appellants, Department noticed that the appellants were transferring the manufactured Silico-manganese to their Depot i.e. M/s. Vandana Global Ltd. Nagapur, for further sales to their customers. However, they were paying duty at the time of removal. The Department while relying upon Section 3 (ccc) of Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter called as CEA), alleged that since the place of removal in case of excisable goods shall be deemed to be in reference to the time at which such goods were cleared from the factory the valuation at which duty was payable with reference to the value was not available at the time of removal when the appellant have actually paid the excise duty. Accordingly, it was alleged that the appellants were not discharging their duty liability on finished goods so cleared through Depot as per the provisions of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2007. Resultantly, the demands as mentioned in the chart above were proposed vide the show cause notices as mentioned above. The said demands in four of these appeals have been confirmed not only by the respective Order-in-Original but also vide respective Order-in-Appeals as well except for the show cause notice dated 26 May, 2015 in Appeal No. E/51245/2017 that the original adjudicating authority dropped the demand. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) restored the proposed demand. Resultantly, all the four appeals are before this Tribunal.
4. We have heard Shri A.K. Prasad, ld. Counsel for the appellant and Shri H.C. Saini, ld. D.R. for the Revenue.
5. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the demand has been confirmed based on Rule 7 of Central Excise Valuation Rules 2007 as the substantial sale of the finished goods of appellant was made at their factory gate itself i.e. in Raipur for the sale from the Depot. It is submitted that the definition of place of removal has got amended w.e.f. 31.03.2003 so as to include a warehouse or a Depot including premises of a consignment agent from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory. It is therefore, impressed upon that Rule 7 still insisting only the factory gate as the place of removal is in clear contradiction to the afo........