9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Commissioner (Appeals) has partially allowed the appeal of the appellant. Since the issue involved in these two appeals is identical and there is a common impugned order, therefore, both the appeals are taken up together for discussion and decision. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in manufacture of Printed Plastic Laminates falling under Tariff Heading Nos. 39206290 & 39159990 of First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant have been availing the benefit of Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002. Two show cause notices dated 04.06.2009 and 31.12.2009 for the periods March 2008 to May 2008 and December 2008 to March 2009 respectively were issued to the appellant on the alle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appellant and set aside the demand. With regard to the issue of outward freight, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held it against the appellant by confirming the demand. Hence, the present appeals. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. 4.1 He further submits that as per the department, the appellant have included the freight element in the transaction value which appears not to be includible in the transaction value as per the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. This has led to increase in trans ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat in the present case, from the perusal of documents on record, it is clear that the appellant sold the goods on FOR basis and have included the value of freight in the assessable value which has been disputed by the department. Further, we find that this issue is no more res integra as the same has been settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Ramco Cements Limited (supra) as well as by the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of M/s Inox Air Products Pvt Ltd (supra), wherein the Hon'ble High Court, after considering various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the decision of Larger Bench of the Tribunal in M/s Ramco Cements Limited (supra)'s case, has held that when there is FOR sale and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Of Central Excise, Bolpur vs M/s Ratan Melting & Wire Industries [MANU/SC/8792/2008]. 35) We may also point out that the decisions of the Supreme Court in EMCO Ltd. (supra) and M/s Roofit Industries Ltd. (supra) which specifically dealt with FOR contract sales were not referred to or considered in Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. case (supra) and the said case was not a case of FOR contract. 36) Learned counsel for the respondent has also brought to our notice decision rendered in the very case of the appellant in M/s. Inox Air Products Limited vs. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise [Excise Appeal No. 41117/2013 dated 22.02.2024], by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai rendered on 22.02.2024, where a plea similar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
