9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2011-EX(PB) - Dated:- 16-11-2011 - Mr Ashok Jindal, Mr.Mathew John, JJ. Appeared for the Appellant: Shri S.R. Meena, DR Appeared for the Respondent: Shri Vikrant Kackria, Advocate ORDER Per Mathew John; The respondents are manufacturers of MS pipes falling under Chapter 73 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.The Respondents had entered into contract for supply of MS pipes on FOR destination basis for supply of MS pipes to Gujarat Water Supply and Sewage Board (GWSSB) at various sites as specified by the GWSSB. On examination of the records of the assesse, Revenue noticed that the respondents were not billing the goods at the price agreed to between them and GWSSB but were billing for a lower price and payi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factory was the place of removal in their case. However, he had confirmed demand for duty amounting to Rs. 20,687/- on account of claim made by respondent on tax to be paid to Gujarat Government but was not paid. Further penalty equal to the same amount was imposed. Aggrieved by this order, the Department filed an appeal with the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority. Aggrieved by this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue has filed this appeal on the following grounds: i) That Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly relied upon the Case law of M/s Excorts JCB Ltd which is not applicable to the facts of this case. In the relied upon case law, Hon'ble Supreme Court has h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oval was not the factory premises but the project site where the goods were delivered to GWSSB. Revenue is relying on the fact that at the site, the respondents were doing inside coating (epoxy painting) and outside gunniting and relying on this fact to buttress the claim that the place of sale was the project site. 5. The submission of the respondent is that the goods were sold to the buyers at their factory gate and there was an agreement with the buyers to deliver the goods at their project site and the buyers had agreed to reimburse the cost of freight and insurance. They submit that the fact that they were arranging transport and insurance and getting the amount reimbursed, cannot be a reason to consider the project site as the plac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re such excisable goods are removed. 7. Clause (i) and (ii) of the above definition are clearly not applicable to the facts of the case. The Department is canvassing that the project site will fall within clause (iii) of the definition. The interpretation is that this clause means place of removal is the place where the excisable goods are delivered to the buyers. Such an interpretation is not reasonable because the places included in that clause are (i) a depot (ii) premises of a consignment agent or (iii) any other place of removal. Naturally, the expression used in third category has to mean a place of the same nature as a depot or premises of a consignment. Further clause (iii) refers to a place from where the excisable goods are to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
