TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1803X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of freight component in the transaction value - N/N. 56/2002-C.E., dated 14-11-2002 - HELD THAT:- In the present case the appellant/assessee 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/assessee should form part of the assessable value in such FOR sale. Hon ble Supreme Court in CCE, Nagpur v. Ispat Industries Ltd. [ 2015 (10) TMI 613 - SUPREME COURT ]. 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. Following the ratio of the Apex Court in Ispat Industries Ltd., it is hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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 Nutrients Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Guwahati - 2017-TIOL-416-SC-CX = 2017 (355) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.), As such, following the ratio of the Hon ble Supreme Court who held that the assessee is eligible for such refund which is paid along with the excise duty once the excise duty itself was exempted. As such, all the appeals which were on this dispute are decided following the ratio of the Apex Court, stated above. 3. The second issue is with reference to valuation of excisable goods manufactured and cleared by the appellant/ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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.). The Apex Court observed as below :- 16. It will thus be seen that where the price at which goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee is different for different places of removal, then each such price shall be deemed to be the normal value thereof. Sub-clause (b)(iii) is very important and makes it clear that a depot, the premises of a consignment agent, or any other place or premises from where the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s premises will not make the place of removal as buyer s premises. Following the ratio of the Apex Court in Ispat Industries Ltd. (supra), we hold that there is no justification for the appellant/assessee 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 be covered by the exemption under Notification No. 56/2002-C.E. does not arise. Accordingly, we hold the claim of the appellant/assessee in these appeals are not sustainable. 6. To sum up, the appeals filed by the assessee-appellants contesting the eligibility for refund of education cess are allowed and the appeals regarding assessable value with incl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
