2001 (12) TMI 377

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e, S.K. Sharma, Consultant, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice K.K. Usha, President]. - This is an appeal at the instance of the Revenue challenging the Order-in-Appeal No. 665-CE/DLH/2001 dated 6-8-2001 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi. The respondent herein challenged an order dated 1-5-2001 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi-I confirming the demand .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion that the facts of the two decisions mentioned above are different from the present case as there was no material to suggest that the goods were not delivered at the factory gate. The appeal filed by the assessee was, therefore, allowed. 3. Learned Departmental Representative submits that the view taken by the appellate authority was not based on the oral statement given by S.L. Arora, Pr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... before the Tribunal. He referred to the invoices produced as part of the paper book. From which it can be seen that the responsibility of the respondent ceases after the goods are transported. In certain invoices the freight is separately shown but in certain other invoices the freight is not included at all. The learned Counsel would submit that as per requirement by the Customers in certain cas .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X