TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... freight and insurance charges in the assessable value and the duty on the impugned goods requires to be re-calculated accordingly. The Respondents would be entitled to the refund of duty paid on such re-calculated value in terms of the Notification No. 32/99-C.E. and their customers would only be entitled to duty credit of that amount, provided it has been paid in cash, as stipulated under the said Notification. The Respondents are also entitled to refund of the excess duty paid on the remaining portion representing freight and insurance charges as such duty in the first place is not required to be paid by them. Their customers would also not be eligible for taking credit of that portion of the duty on freight and insurance charges paid by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... connection, he refers to the definition of 'place of removal' which included not only the depot, the premises of a consignment agent, but also any other place or premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory. He also refers to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jindal (India) Ltd. v. CCE, Kolkata-II - 2007 (215) E.L.T. 308 (Tri. - Kolkata), where it has been held that there is no requirement of adding freight charge to the assessable value, if the same is shown separately. He argues that the freight charge was not separately shown by the Respondents, as the sale was on F.O.R. basis. He argues that the sale took place at the customers' premises, since the terms of the sale was on F.O.R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... argument of the learned Advocate for the Respondents for inclusion of the freight and insurance charges in the assessable value cannot be accepted. The reliance on the case of Jindal (India) Ltd. (cited supra) is also misplaced. The Tribunal in the case of Jindal (India) Ltd. merely holds that where transport charges are shown separately, the same cannot be included in the assessable value. Such a decision is not an authority to include transportation charge in the assessable value, where it is not shown separately. We are also of the view that the reliance placed by the learned Advocate for the Respondents on - (i) Yamaha Motors India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi-IV - 2008 (231) E.L.T. 677 (Tri.-Del.); (ii) CCE, Jaipur v. Rajasthan Spg. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
