9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dar, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. S. S. Chattopadhyay, Authorized Representative. ORDER PER R. MURALIDHAR: The Appellants were issued Show Cause Notice on the ground that the freight charges collected by them from their buyers was not included in the assessable value. After due process, the demand was confirmed. Being aggrieved, the Appellant is before the Tribunal. 2. The Learned Advo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as under:- 23. It is clear, therefore, that on and after 14-5-2003, the position as it obtained from 28-9-1996 to 1-7-2000 has now been reinstated. Rule 5 as substituted in 2003 also confirms the position that the cost of transportation from the place of removal to the place of delivery is to be excluded, save and except in a case where the factory is not the place of removal. 32. It will be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as originally enacted and as amended to demonstrate that the buyer's premises cannot, in law, be "a place of removal" under the said Section. 33. As has been seen in the present case all prices were "ex-works", like the facts in Escorts JCB's case. Goods were cleared from the factory on payment of the appropriate sales tax by the assessee itself, thereby indicating that it had sold the goods ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. [Emphasis supplied] 6. Respectfully following this judgment, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
