Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2014 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 949 - AT - Central ExciseValuation of goods - Whether the equalized freight was to be part of the assessable value or not - Held that:- During the period of dispute, the definition of “Place of Removal” as given in Section 4(3)(c) of Central Excise Act, 1944, covered only a factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacture of the excisable goods, or warehouse or any other place or premises wherein excisable goods have been permitted to be deposited without payment of duty. - during the period prior to 14-5-2003, the “place of removal” would include only the factory or Bonded Warehouse where the non-duty paid have been allowed to be stored and would not include the “depot” or “consignment agent’s premises” or “customer’s premises” in case of FOR sales. In accordance with the Apex Court’s judgment in the case of Ispat Industries v. CCE, Mumbai reported in [2006 (9) TMI 181 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] in case of conflict between provision of a Rule framed under the Delegated Legislative Authority, and the provisions of an Act passed by the Parliament, it is the provision of the Act which will prevail. Provisions of Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, relied upon by the Department, cannot be given an interpretation which is the conflict with the provisions of Section 4(3)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as the same stood during the period of dispute. Therefore, during the period of dispute, equalized freight would not be includible in the assessable value as the transaction value has to be the price at the place of removal which in this case during the period of dispute was the factory gate. There is, therefore, no infirmity in the impugned order - Decided against Revenue.
|