Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 842 - CESTAT MUMBAIAssessable Value – Place of removal - delivery at customer's factory gate - inclusion of cost of transportation - Held that:- The assessable value has to be determined in respect of each removal of the excisable goods and the value on which the duty is liable to be paid in a case where the goods are sold by the assessee for delivery at the time and place of removal and the assessee and the buyer are not related and the price is the sole consideration for sale, is the transaction value - the price for levy of excise duty is the transaction value for delivery of the excisable goods at the time and place of removal. If goods are delivered at the customers' premises, whether at appellant's own volition or at the request of the customer, that should not make any difference in the assessable value of the goods because the goods are sold for delivery at the customers' premises and as per Section 4, the price is the sale value of the goods for delivery at the time and place of removal - As per the definition of ‘place of removal' when the goods are sold at the customers' premises for delivery, it is the customers' premises which is the ‘place of removal' - there was no merit in the argument of the appellant that where the goods are delivered at the customers' premises at a pre-agreed rate of transportation, the cost of transportation should be excluded from the sale price to arrive at the assessable value. Time-Barred Appeal – Waiver of Pre-deposit - Held that:- The declaration made in the ER-1 return is only with respect to availment of CENVAT credit on the GTA services paid by the appellant - Availment of credit has nothing to do with the valuation of excisable goods - this declaration in the ER-1 returns no way shows that the appellant has declared the correct value or revealed the entire nature of the transactions to the department - the plea of time-bar raised by the appellant is prima facie not admissible – in the absence of a prima facie case and financial hardship, balance of convenience lies in favour of the Revenue - the appellant directed to make a pre-deposit of four crore – upon ssuch submission rest of the dues adjudged against the appellant shall stand waived and recovery stayed during the pendency of the appeal – Partial stay granted.
|