2013 (6) TMI 449

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f removal is the factory gate or depot and not the place of delivery to the buyer. The issue that cost of transportation from place of removal to the place of delivery will not form part of assessable value is also decided in the said case and many other decisions. - Decided in favor of assessee.
Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Shri Mathew John, JJ. Smt. Reena Khair, Advocate, for the Appellant. Smt. Renu, AR, for the Respondent. ORDER Two Appeals are being decided in this proceeding. The Appeals are against the same impugned order and the issue involved is also the same. So the appeals are being decided together. 2. The Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of explosives. They sell their goods to Coal India Ltd. at prices agreed between .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rther penalties equal to the duty amounts were imposed under Section 11AC of the Act. On Appeals filed with the Commissioner (Appeal) the appellants did not get any relief. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeal) the appellants have filed these appeals. 4. The contention of the appellants is that the price on which they have paid excise duty is the price for delivery at the time and place of removal. As per provisions of Section 4(a) of Central Excise Act, excise duty is payable on such prices only and there is no need to go to the provisions of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 ("the Valuations Rules" for short). If at all the Valuation Rules are relied upon Rule 5 of the Valu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rguments on both sides. 8. In this case the Appellants had entered into contracts between the appellants and Coal India Ltd., a public sector undertaking, showing the price of the goods and cost of transportation separately. The amounts are also billed separately. The only issue is that in the invoice issued under Rule 11 of CER, 2002 the amount recovered towards freight was not shown. Revenue has not made out any case that the freight charged is not known separately or is much more than the expense incurred by the Appellants for transportation and consequently a part of the value of goods is charged as freight. 9. It is already decided by the Apex Court in the case of Escorts JCB (supra) that in this type of situation the place of remova .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X