Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2019 (5) TMI 1018

the buyers and had taken insurance under ‘open marine policy’ to cover the loss in transit and safe delivery of goods up to the customer’s place - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute as regards the facts of the present case according to which the appellant have charged transportation charges in the invoices showing separately from their customers. The goods were cleared for sale from the factory premises of the appellant. The insurance of the goods was covered by the appellant up to the place of delivery of the goods. As per the impugned order, the entire emphasis was given that the place of removal is the place of delivery, which is the premises of the buyer of the goods therefore, all the expenses including the insurance, fr .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

of such buyers had to be treated as place of removal, as per the definition of place of removal given in Section 4(3)(c) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Accordingly, it was further contended that the appellant had recovered the cost of transportation for such deliveries from their buyers but had not included the said transportation cost in the transaction value to be computed for excisable goods. The case of the department is that, appellant is required to include the transportation charges for determining the transaction value for levy of excise duty which they have failed to do so. Accordingly, the differential duty demand was confirmed. Therefore, the present appeal. 2. Shri Somesh Arora, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant su .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

the premises of buyer and terms any other premises refers to premises of manufacturer only in Section 4. In support of this submission, he placed reliance on the following decisions :- (a) Escorts JCB Limited vs. CCE, Delhi - 2002 (146) ELT 31 (SC) (b) Solaris Chemtech Limited vs. CCE, Mangalore - 2004 (178) ELT 966 (Tri. Bang.) (c) CCE, Delhi vs. Purisons Engineers (P) Limited - 2002 (141) ELT 672 (Tri. Del.) He also placed reliance on Circular No. 999/6/2015-CX dated 28.02.2015 which states that handing over of the goods to the carrier/ transporter for further delivery of the goods to the buyer, with the seller not reserving the right of disposal of the goods, would lead to pass on of the property in goods from the seller to the buyer and .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

pellant. The insurance of the goods was covered by the appellant up to the place of delivery of the goods. As per the impugned order, the entire emphasis was given that the place of removal is the place of delivery, which is the premises of the buyer of the goods therefore, all the expenses including the insurance, freight etc are includable in the transaction value. In this regard, the definition of place of removal provided under Section 4 (3)(c) is reproduced below:- (c) place of removal means - (i) a factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacture of the excisable goods; (ii) a warehouse or any other place on premises wherein the excisable goods have been permitted to be deposited without [payment of duty] (iii) a de .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable goods) Rules, 2000. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ispat Industries Limited (Supra) dealt with the same legal issue in the same set of facts and passed the following order:- 32. It will be seen that this is a decision distinguishing the Escorts JCB s case on facts. It was found that goods were to be delivered only at the place of the buyer and the price of the goods was inclusive of transportation charges. As transit damage on the assessee s account would imply that till the goods reached their destination, ownership in the goods remained with the supplier, namely, the assessee, freight charges would have to be added as a component of excise duty. Further, as per .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ise, Mumbai-III v. M/s. EMCO Ltd., this Court re-stated its decision in the Roofit Industries case but remanded the case to the Tribunal to determine whether on facts the factory gate of the assessee was the place of removal of excisable goods. This case again is wholly distinguishable on facts on the same lines as the Roofit Industries case. 34. In the view of the law that we have taken as well as the facts detailed above, the statement made by Shri S.P. Dahiwade pales into insignificance as has been correctly held by the Tribunal. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal with no order as to costs 7. As per the above settled legal position and our observations made hereinabove, we are of the view that transportation charges is not includable in .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||