TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oice the freight amount can be identified. It is not the case of the Revenue that the amount of freight shown in the commercial invoice is not correct or it is not on account of freight therefore only for not showing the freight in the excise invoice, excise duty cannot be charged thereon. The adjudicating authority, in the adjudication order has accepted that the sale is at factory gate therefore place of removal is the factory gate and as per Rule 5 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 freight amount is not chargeable to excise duty. Moreover during the period in question i.e. 1.7.2000 to 31.3.2003, the definition of place of removal was restricted to the factory gate or the depot. The premises of the buyer could not have been the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of the freight indicated in the commercial invoices and collected the same from customers for the period 1/7/2000 to 31/3/2003. The adjudicating authority in the Order-in-Original confirmed the demand of the said differential excise duty on the element of freight. The Adjudicating authority given the findings that the sale is at factory gate accordingly valuation is required to be done under Section 4(1)(b) of Central Excise Act, 1944 therefore the provision of Central Excise (determination of value of Excisable goods) Rules, 2000 will be applicable. The duty was confirmed on the ground that the freight amount was not shown in the invoice which is in contravention of the Rule 5 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. Being aggrieved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that as per the statement given by the representative of the appellant that the term of sale is that the delivery of the goods has to be given to the buyer therefore the sale has not taken place at factory gate but at customers premises, therefore the transportation charges should be included in the assessable value. In this support he placed reliance on following judgments (a) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Raigad[2015(327) ELT 582(Tri. Mumbai)] (b) Wearwell Tyres Tubes Indus P. Ltd Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. Bhopal[2010(257)E.L.T. 126(Tri. Del.)] 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 6. We find that in the show cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
