TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 987X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund/re-credit of education/higher education cess. Valuation - inclusion of outward freight element - Held that: - The refund/re-credit with reference to the value attributable to outward freight is not available to the appellant assessee. Appeal allowed in part. - Appeal Nos. E/949-957,2523-2531/2011-DB - Final Order No. 61234-61251 / 2018 - Dated:- 9-3-2018 - Mr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri A. K. Prasad, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Harvinder Singh, A.R. for the Respondent ORDER Per : Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra All these appeals are on common disputes and are accordingly taken up together for disposal. 2. The appellant is having a manu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emises of a consignment agent from where the excisable goods are sold after the clearance from the factory. We note in the present case, the appellant is claiming that the goods were sold on FOR basis and as such the place of removal is the delivery point to the buyer. The freight element incurred by the appellant should form part of the assessable value in such FOR sale. In this connection, we note that the learned AR relied on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in CCE, Nagpur vs. Ispat Industries Limited 2015 (324) E.L.T. 670 (S.C.) . In the said decision the Apex court held under no circumstances can the buyer s premises, therefore, be the place of removal for the purpose of Section 4 on the facts of the present case . The Apex court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ansit cannot possibly be the sole consideration to decide ownership or the point of sale of goods. 5. In the present case, the impugned order records that the appellant has not produced anything on record which would show that they had cleared the goods from the factory gate to a warehouse, any other premises, a depot, consignment agents premises etc. from where such excisable goods were sold. Admittedly, the goods sold by the appellant delivered at the buyers premises will not make the place of removal as buyers premises. Following the ratio of the Apex court in Ispat Industries Ltd. (supra), we hold that there is no justification for the appellant to consider the assessable value with inclusion of freight element after the goods were s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or further process, wherever required and on completion of the same, they have discharged the duty again and cleared the same. The procedure for return of duty paid goods, re-credit of duty already paid and liability to pay duty when the goods were again cleared after reprocessing etc. are governed by Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, which are available to the appellants also. The view of the Revenue that Notification No. 56/2002 is available only once, is neither justified nor legally supported. 8. Ld. AR contested the appeal and submitted that though the notification did not elaborately discuss the procedure to be followed in such situation, the fact is that the appellants were granted facility of re-credit/ refund for the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
