TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts are 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 appellants should form part of the assessable value in such FOR sale - 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. Appeal disposed off. - Appeal No. E/52400-52406/2014 - A/62999-63005/2018-EX[DB] - Dated:- 31-8-2018 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri. Naveen Bindal, Advocate- for the appellant Shri. Harvinder Singh, AR - for the respondent ORDER Per Ashok Jindal: The appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation 56/2002-CE which was held ineligible to the appellant. On this premise, the Revenue proceeded against the appellant to deny such refund and to recover wherever such refunds were sanctioned. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeals record. On the second issue it is noted that the impugned order held that based on the statutory definition of Place of removal under Section 4 of the Central excise Act, 1944 it is clear that the same could be factory, warehouse or any other premises or depot or premises of a consignment agent from where the excisable goods are sold after the clearance from the factory. We note in the present case the appellants are claiming that the goods were sold on FOR basis and as such the place of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch place or premises is stated to be where excisable goods are to be sold . These are the key words of the sub-section. The place or premises from where excisable goods are to be sold can only be the manufacturer is premises or premises referable to the manufacturer. If we are to accept the contention of the revenue, then these words will have to be substituted by the words have been sold which would then possibly have reference to the buyer s premises . The Apex court also held that insurance of goods during transit 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 appellants have not produced anything on record which would sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
