9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 917X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (a), the transaction value has be for delivery of the goods at the time and place of removal. In fact for this reason only Rule 5 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000 specifically provides for exclusion of the cost of freight from the place of removal the place of delivery when it is charged from the customer in addition to the price and is mentioned separately in the invoices. The provisions of Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 can thus, be said to be analogous to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 4, as it stood during period prior to 1-7-2000 - Decided in favour of assessee. - E/2168/2011 - Final Order No. A/438/2012-EX(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 10-4-2012 - Ajit Bharihoke and Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. None, for the Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also directed the payment of interest in terms of Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and imposed penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001. The appellant s appeal against Assistant Commissioner s order was dismissed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 15-11-2011. Against this order of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), this appeal along with stay application has been filed. 5. None appeared for the Appellant. However, there is a letter from the Appellant praying for decision of their stay application on merits. 6. Heard Shri Nagesh Pathak, the learned Authorised Representative for the Department. Though this matter is listed today only for hearing of the stay appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cumstances in which the excisable goods are sold for delivery at a place other than the place of removal, then the value of such excisable goods shall be deemed to be the transaction value, excluding the actual cost of transportation from the place of removal upto the place of delivery of such excisable goods, provided the cost of transportation is charged to the buyer in addition to the price for the goods and is shown separately on the invoices for such excisable goods. The point of dispute is as to whether the freight though charged in addition to the price of the goods and shown separately in the invoices, but charged on equalized basis is excludible from the assessable value. According to the Department, only the actual freight can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be analogous to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 4, as it stood during period prior to 1-7-2000. Therefore, the ratio of the Apex Court s judgment in the case of UOI v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. (supra) is applicable to the new Section 4 also. We find that the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of VIP Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported in 2003 (57) RLT 6 (S.C.) = 2003 (155) E.L.T. 8 (S.C.) also has held that cost of transportation is not to be included when the sale price is inclusive of equalized freight and the same view has been taken by the Tribunal in case of Majestic Auto Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported in 2003 (57) R.L.T. 19 (T). = 2003 (160) E.L.T. 541 (Tribunal). 10. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
