TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 654X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t as FOR basis, the burden of proof in this regard would be on the Department. Just because there are no purchase orders placed by the customers or there are no agreements between the appellant and their customers regarding sale of the goods and the terms of sale, it cannot be concluded that the sales are not on FOR destination basis. We find neither any inquiry in this regard has been conducted by the Department nor any evidence has been produced. In view of this, the impugned orders are not correct. The same are set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeals Nos.E/59073-59076 & 59087 of 2013 - Final Order Nos.51020-51024/2014 - Dated:- 25-2-2014 - Shri G. Raghuram and Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri D.K. Nay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this, penalties were imposed under Section 11 AC. The appeals filed against the orders passed by the original adjudicating authority were dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant, thereafter, filed appeals before the Tribunal which were disposed of by the Tribunal vide Final Order No.A/1251-1254/2012-EX dated 16.10.2012 by which the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo decision after examining as to whether the appellants sales were on FOR destination basis as per the criteria prescribed in this regard in the Boards circular no.23.08.2007 i.e. during transit of the goods, the risk of loss of the goods or damage to the goods was of the appellant, the ownership of the goods was to be bor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he risk of loss of the goods was of the appellant and ownership of the goods during transit was also of the appellant, that the goods during transit have been insured by the appellant only and they have borne the cost of the insurance, that the judgements of Apex Court in the case of M/s. Escorts JCB Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi 2002 (146) ELT 31 (SC) and Accurate Meters Ltd. reported in 2009 (235) ELT 581 (SC) are not applicable to the facts of this case, as this is not the case where the sales were at the factory gate, that in view of this, the impugned order is not correct. 5. Shri Promod Kumar, learned Joint CDR, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and pleaded that the appellants sales were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
