2024 (4) TMI 62 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - inclusion of freight charges for delivery at buyer's place in the transaction value - removal from factory gate - HELD THAT - It is found that freight have been charged separately and received separately. It is also noticed that the buyers of the goods-Western Coalfields Ltd., Nagpur and M/s Bharart Coking Coal Ltd. (A Subsidiary of Coal India Ltd.) have issued purchase order specifying the price for the goods separately and also specifying the transportation cost for the supply of goods. Accordingly, appellant have supplied the goods and raised invoices for the price of goods and the transportation. Thus, it amounts to showing the cost of transport separately in the invoices. The place of removal is factory gate, however the goods were delivered at customer place. Therefore goods were sold for delivery not at the place of removal (i.e. factory gate) but at other place i.e. customer door step. On perusal of copies of the purchase orders placed by the M/s Western Coalfields Ltd., Nagpur and M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and invoices issued by the Appellant. From the invoices it is seen that the freight shown in the invoices is in addition to basic price of the goods. It is clear from the terms of the purchase order that basic price and other components have to be indicated separately. Therefore, there is no dispute that basic price and the freight components are clearly indicated separately in the invoices and therefore criterion i.e. cost of transportation should be in addition to the basic price of the goods stand fulfilled. There are no valid reason for disallowing the deduction for the freight paid inasmuch as the sales are FOR destination - It is also found that a coordinate Bench of CESTAT in the case of STERLITE OPTICAL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS AURANGABAD 2015 (9) TMI 1023 - CESTAT MUMBAI has taken a view in identical facts that freight will be allowable as a deduction from the composite price. Thus, the contention of the Department to include the freight amount in the assessable value does not meet the test of law and hence not legally sustainable. Hence, there are no merit in order passed by the appellate authority. The impugned order is set aside - appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves the issue of whether the freight charged separately in the sale invoices of excisable goods is includible in the assessable value of such goods.

Facts:
During an audit, it was noted that the appellant was clearing goods on FOR basis, collecting transportation charges separately, but not including these charges in the assessable value from 2010-11 to December 2013. A show cause notice was issued, and the demand was confirmed. The appellant appealed, which was dismissed, leading to the current appeal before the Tribunal.

Appellant's Argument:
The appellant argued that the excisable goods were removed from the factory gate, with the price of goods fixed separately from the freight charges. They cited judgments to support their position and contended that there was no evidence to show that the charges were meant to depress the assessable value. They also argued that the issue had been litigated extensively, making the extended period for demand unjustifiable.

Revenue's Submission:
The revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order.

Tribunal's Analysis:
The Tribunal considered the submissions and examined the relevant Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules. It noted that the goods were sold for delivery at a place other than the place of removal, with the freight shown separately in the invoices. The Tribunal found that the basic price and freight components were clearly indicated separately in the invoices, meeting the criteria for allowing the deduction of transportation costs.

Decision:
The Tribunal found no valid reason to disallow the deduction for freight paid, as the sales were FOR destination. Citing precedent, the Tribunal held that the freight amount is not includable in the assessable value for charging excise duty. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the freight charges separately shown in the sale invoices of excisable goods are not includible in the assessable value, thereby allowing the appeal and providing relief accordingly.