9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1089X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anufacturing excisable goods; enjoying area based exemption under Notification 56/2002-CE dated 14/11/2002. As per the scheme of the notification, the appellant is eligible for exemption equivalent to the duty payable on the value addition made on the final products cleared by them. There are two disputes in these bunch of appeals. The first one is with reference to eligibility of the appellant for refund of education/ higher education cess paid by them on such final products. The Revenue entertained a view that such cess is not refundable as no exemption is provided for the same. 2. On the issue relating to refund of education cess, both the sides agreed that the issue stands covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in SRD Nutrien ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om 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 Ltd. - 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 also distinguished their earlier decision in Rooffit Industries - 2015 (319) E.L.T. 221 (S.C.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods. 5. In the present case, the impugned order records that the appellant have 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 sold/removed from the factory. As such, the question of paying duty on such value addition to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
