TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1018X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. When the facts were clear that goods cleared from the factory for sale, even though on FOR basis, the place of buyer cannot be the place of removal in such case the factory from where the goods were cleared for sale is the place of removal. Accordingly, the freight charges is not includable in the assessable value in terms of Rule 5 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 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 submits that on the identical issue, in the same set of facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Nagpur vs. Ispat Industries Limited 2015 (324) ELT 670 (SC) held that in the given facts, the goods were cleared for sale from the factory, the place of removal shall be factory gate only and not the place o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 it is the factory gate or the warehouse or the depot of the manufacturer which would be the place of removal since it is here that the goods are handed over to the transporter for the purpose of transmission to the buyer. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l 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 depot, premises of a consignment agent or any other place or premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the terms of the payment clause contained in the procure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
