9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot warranted. - However, it is brought to our notice that the definition of place of removal has undergone a change and the depots were not considered as place of removal for the period from 1-7-2000 to 30-6-2003. Therefore, during this period, in our considered opinion, there is no justification to include the amount collected towards freight and insurance. However, during this period, the amount of deduction available should be restricted to the actual amount incurred. To enable the same, we would like remand the matter in appeals relating to this period for quantifying the deduction. - E/5873 and 5875-5881/2004 - 336-343/2009-EX(PB), - Dated:- 6-5-2009 - Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President and Shri M. Veeraiyan, Member (T) Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2003 (155) E.L.T. 8 (S.C.) held that the freight from factory to depot is not includible in the assessable value and allowed the appeals. 4. Learned DR submits that these case on facts are different from the case in VIP Industries in which, with a view to maintain a common price throughout India, party was collecting equalised amount towards freight and insurance. In the present cases, it is not a case of maintaining a uniform price throughout India. Further, the respondents are not collecting any freight in respect of sales made at the factory gate which will go against the claim of equalised freight. He also relies on the decision in the case of Prabhat Zarda Factory Ltd. - 2002 (146) E.L.T. 497 (S.C.) based on the judgment of Hon'ble S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purpose of excise changes merely because the definition of the term "place of removal" is extended. The normal price remains the price at the time of delivery and at the place of removal. In cases of "equalised freight it remains the same as per the judgments of this Court set out herein above." 5.2 Further, for the above period, as the issue involved is pure interpretation of legal provision, we hold that no penalty is warranted. 5.3 However, it is brought to our notice that the definition of place of removal has undergone a change and the depots were not considered as place of removal for the period from 1-7-2000 to 30-6-2003. Therefore, during this period, in our considered opinion, there is no justification to include the amount col ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
