Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2022 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 138 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - Recovery of transportation/ freight from their buyers and mentioning the same separately on the correspondence invoices/ bills - requirement of inclusion of said freight collected from the buyer in the assessable value of the goods for the purpose of payment of duty, or not - Place of removal - sub section (1) of Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 - demand of Interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- While the show cause notice alleged that the amount of freight recovered in the invoices is additional consideration, the Commissioner in the impugned order has held that when the freight is collected in invoices for delivery upto the buyer’s premises, the buyer’s premises become the ‘place of removal’. It is seen that the above decision of Hon’ble Apex Court covers all the aspects of this issue, in the cases of COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD VERSUS M/S ROOFIT INDUSTRIES LTD. [2015 (4) TMI 857 - SUPREME COURT] and COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-III VERSUS M/S. EMCO LTD. [2015 (8) TMI 200 - SUPREME COURT] holds that the buyer’s premises cannot, in law, be a “place of removal” under Section 4. In this matrix of facts, the decision of Commissioner holding buyer’s premises as “place of removal” cannot be upheld. The impugned order upholding the demand of duty is therefore set aside. Demand of Interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- Since the demand of duty is set aside, the demand of interest as well as penalty cannot be sustained. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|