TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 674X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t clear that this fact was not brought to the attention of the Court when the earlier orders were passed. In view of the above, we find that it is now well settled that the buyer s premises can never be the place of removal, therefore the freight from the factory/depot/consignment agent up to the buyer s premises cannot be included in the assessable value, even if the goods are sold or delivered at the buyer s premises. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/30343/2018 - A/30932/2020 - Dated:- 13-10-2020 - MR. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Venkat Prasad, CA, Representative for the appellant. Shri N. Bhanu Kiran, Authorized Representative for the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and against which the present appeal has been filed before this forum. 3. In the impugned order the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded the issue as What is the place of removal? Whether it is the factory gate of the appellant or the buyer s premises? whether the freight charges incurred by the appellants for transport of goods needs to be loaded to the assessable value for the purpose of payment of duty? 4. It is the appellant s case inter alia that the parameters of section 4 (1) (a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are satisfied in the present case except in the place of delivery; that they are not retaining any ownership of the goods and they are also not bearing any risk during the transit; that they are selling the good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rds. 10. We have considered the arguments on both sides and perused the records and find that the issue of including the freight from seller s premises to the buyer s premises when the sale is for delivery at the buyer s premises, has been settled at the hands of Hon ble Apex Court and has reached finality. It is true that the case of Ispat Industries Limited was in the context of unamended Section 4 which did not have clause (iii) of Section 4(4)(b) which said A depot, premises of a consignment agent or any other place or other premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory from where such goods are removed . The case of Roofit Industries Limited pertains to the amended Section 4. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er s premises can never be the place of removal, therefore the freight from the factory/depot/consignment agent up to the buyer s premises cannot be included in the assessable value, even if the goods are sold or delivered at the buyer s premises. In view of the above, we find that the settled legal position is in favour of the appellants and against Revenue and the demands are unsustainable on merits and need to be set aside and we do so. Since we have taken a decision on the merits of the case, the issue of limitation becomes irrelevant. 11. The impugned orders are set aside and the appeals No. E/30690/2016, E/30003/2018, E/30034/2018, E/30057/2018 and E/30109/2018 are allowed with consequential relief, if any and Revenue s appeal No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
