TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 695X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of removal, as per definition in section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 becomes the buyers premises, as that is the place or premises from where the excisable goods were sold after the clearance from the factory from where such goods were removed. That being the case, the freight charges are clearly includible in the assessable value. Therefore, duty paid by them on the impugned goods on value inclusive of the freight charges has been correctly paid and consequently the impugned refund (self-credit) thereof under notification No. 56/2002-CE has also been correctly taken. The decision of the Chattisgarh High Court in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE Raipur : [2014 (8) TMI 788 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] is also in harmony wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ided in favour of assessee. - Excise Stay Application No.E/S/50148/2014 in Excise Appeal No.E/50121/2014 [Ex. DB], Excise Stay Application No.E/S/50149/2014 in Excise Appeal No.E/50122/2014 [Ex. DB] - Final Order No. 54225-54226/2014 - Dated:- 22-10-2014 - G. Raghuram And R. K. Singh,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Arvind Arora, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri M. S. Negi, DR ORDER Per: R. K. Singh Stay applications alongwith appeals have been filed against Order-in- Appeal No.JnK-EXCUS-000/APP-238-239-13-14 dated 18.09.2013 which upheld the Order-in-Original No.35/2012-13/ADC/RJ/CCE/J K 2012 DATED 31.12.2012 (which had disallowed self credit (refund) of ₹ 44,84,047/- and ordered recovery thereof alongwith int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charges incurred by the appellants in transporting and delivering the goods upto the buyers premises are includible in the assessable value. Therefore, we, with the consent of both sides take up the appeals, dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit. 4. We have perused the representative sales order and invoices. We find that the sale is on FOR destination basis and the destination is the buyer s premises. The cost of transportation is included in the assessable value and the transit insurance has also been taken by the appellants in their name for safe transport of the goods. Thus, it is evident that the ownership of the goods remained with the appellants upto the place of delivery at the buyers premises. In other words, the poin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. The decision of the Chattisgarh High Court in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE Raipur : 2014 (307) ELT 3 (Chhattisgarh) is also in harmony with the view taken by Punjab Haryana High Court (supra) in this regard. In the wake of the foregoing analysis and judicial precedents, the judgement of CESTAT in case of Aditya Birla Insulators Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Central Excise, Kolkata-IV:2008 (226) ELT 377 (Tri.) holding a contrary view clearly stands over-ruled. Thus, the appellants rightly included the cost of transportation in the assessable value. This issue having thus been settled in the appellants favour, the duty was correctly paid and hence the impugned refund correctly taken. 5. We also note that the extended period ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
