TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1792X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MI 613 - SUPREME COURT] has held that freight charges and transit insurance should not be included in the assessable value for the purpose of payment of excise duty and that the term any other place under the definition of place of removal has reference only to the place from which goods are to be sold by manufacturer and has no reference to the place of delivery, which may be a buyer s location. It is not the case of Department that the invoice were not prepared at the time of goods leaving the factory which means property in goods passed from the appellant to its buyer at the time when he removed his goods from the factory. As a result circular no. 999/6/2015-CEX dated 28.2.2015 also becomes applicable to the given facts where it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cord, department observed that the appellant has been selling their products to various buyers after executing a contract / sale agreement. The price of the goods has been shown as agreed on FOR destination basis and at the same time the freight components have also been stated therein. The Department alleging that the FOR price shall be the transaction value in terms of rule 5 of Valuation Rules, served a Show cause notice no. 1008-69 dated 6.10.2017 upon the appellants proposing the recovery of central excise duty amounting to ₹ 38,44,050/- on the amount deducted from assessable value as freight charges for the period September 2012 to June 2017. Interest at the appropriate rate and the appropriate penalties were also proposed to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocate for the respondent has submitted that the place of removal under section 4 of the Excise act is applicable only to the manufacture and not to the buyer of excisable goods. It is submitted that even the expression any other place of premise refers only to manufacturer place of premise because such place or premise is stated to be where excisable goods are to be sold . Such place can only be the manufacturers premise. Resultantly, the freight charges beyond the place of removal cannot form part of assessable value as has been rightly discussed by Commissioner (A). Justifying the order the appeal filed by appellant is prayed to be dismissed. 7. After hearing and perusing the record, we observe that the demand was confirmed base ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and address of the customers of the respondent. When the goods were handed over to the transporter, the respondent had no right to the disposal of the goods nor did it reserve such rights inasmuch as title had already passed to its customer. 8. It is not the case of Department that the invoice were not prepared at the time of goods leaving the factory which means property in goods passed from the appellant to its buyer at the time when he removed his goods from the factory. As a result circular no. 999/6/2015-CEX dated 28.2.2015 also becomes applicable to the given facts where it has been clarified as follows: In most of the cases, therefore, it would appear that handing over of the goods to the carrier / transporter for further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
