Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 154 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - whether the substantive benefit of exclusion of transportation charges to arrive at the assessable value - Held that:- The appellant has shown the contract/purchase order with the railways which indicate freight charges as ₹ 3/- per liter. The corresponding excise invoice does not indicate the freight charges but for each consignment there is a corresponding GR which indicates the freight amount. Further, a separate commercial invoice is raised for freight corresponding to the purchase order. This commercial invoice indicates the value and freight amount separately. We find all these documents tallying in respect of a particular consignment. Only because the freight amount was not indicated separately in the excise invoice, although it is clearly reflected in the commercial invoice and GR, is not sufficient ground to deny the substantive benefit. The law does not require charging of duty on freight for technical lapse of not indicating the freight charges separately on the excise invoice. Reliance is placed on the judgments in the case of West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. v. CCE [2004 (7) TMI 150 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] and Goodyear India Ltd. v. CCE [2014 (6) TMI 682 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
|