Cadre Review in CBEC – 'No Cadre Restructuring Found'
But what happened to the Cadre Restructuring in CBEC? Nobody seems to know while periodical rumours float around.
DG, HRD in CBEC is responsible for the cadre review in CBEC; so we tried to find out from the DGHRD's website. Please go to www.dghrdcbec.gov.in → Activities of DGHRD → Cadre Restructuring and what you find is, "No Cadre Restructuring Found"
Will somebody find it?
Inclusion of ‘depot' in definition of place of removal in s.4 by FA, 2003 - error in the definition reproduced in order rectified - in spite of above, Transaction value would include cost of transportation from factory to depot for prior clearances - ROM disposed of
The appellant has filed a ROM application pointing out certain mistakes ‘apparent' in the CESTAT order dated 16/06/2011 (2011-TIOL-1130-CESTAT-MUM).
The mistake pointed out is that in paragraph 7 of the order, the definition of place of removal under section 4(3)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has been quoted wrongly and the said definition does not contain clause (iii) which reads as under:-
"(iii) a depot, premises of a consignment agent or any other place or premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory."
It is further submitted that the said clause (iii) was inserted in section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 vide Finance Act, 2003 and came into force only on 14.05.2003; that since the period under consideration in the said order was from July, 2000 to December, 2001, the conclusion drawn in the said order is wrong since in respect of clearances from the depot from where the goods are sold, since depot is not a place of removal, the transaction value has to be determined at the factory gate and the same would not include the cost of transportation from the factory to the depot.
The Bench observed –
"3. We have carefully considered the matter. It is noted that there is an error which has crept in while quoting the provisions of section 4(3)(c). Accordingly, the said clause (iii) needs to be deleted. Accordingly, we order that "place of removal' contained in section 4(3)(c) as reproduced in paragraph 7 of the said order be read as –
"(c) "place of removal" means –
(i) A factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacture of the excisable goods;
(ii) A warehouse or any other place or premises wherein the excisable goods have been permitted to be deposited without (payment of duty), from where the goods are removed;"
4. Consequent to the above, in paragraph 8 of the said order, the sentence "From the definition of place of removal, in respect of the goods sold from the depot, it is the depot which is the place of removal, and as regards the time of removal, the same shall be deemed to be the time at which the goods were cleared from the factory" needs to be deleted and we order accordingly.
5. There is no other rectification or modification that is required to be made in the said order even though the ld. Counsel has prayed for setting aside the conclusion drawn in the said order, which, in our considered opinion is not warranted."
The ROM application was disposed of in the above terms.