2007 (4) TMI 600

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of non-woven fabrics classifiable under Chapter 56 of Central Excise Tariff. During the period relevant for the purpose of present appeal i.e. 1998-99, the appellant were clearing the goods from their factory gate to their depot from where they were further being sold. The dispute in the prevent appeal relates to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rges are from Mumbai depot to party s place. The appellant have also produced on record the bills raised by transport company showing that the freight was towards the movement of the goods from the depot to customer s premises. However, the above stand does not stand accepted by the authorities below, who have confirmed the demand of duty against the appellant, by including above charges along wit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... even if the Revenue s stand is accepted, such freight charges, which are on account of equalized freight are not to be added in the assessable value of the goods even after the amendment in the provisions of Section 1 extending the term place of removal to the depot, as held by Hon ble Supreme Court in case of VIP Industries Ltd. reported in 2003 (155) E.L.T. 8 (S.C.). As such, it is seen that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X