9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 for excluding the element of freight from the factory gate to the customer’s premises from the assessable value and on this basis alleges that the appellant in order to avail higher quantum of exemption have deliberately paid duty on the higher value. Stand taken by the department is contradictory, as once the department accepts that appellant’s sales are on FOR basis, the sales would take place at the customer’s premises and in such a situation, in accordance with the provisions of Section 4(3)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, it is the customer’s premises, which would be the ’place of removal’ and accordingly, the assessable value of the goods would include all the expenses incurred upt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on FOR destination basis and were paying duty on the value which included freight charges from the factory to the customer s premises. The department while acknowledging that the appellant were selling the goods to their buyers on FOR basis, was of the view that in terms of the Rule 5 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2005, the assessable value of the goods would not include the freight charges from the factory gate to the customer s premises and accordingly, the appellant have paid more duty than the duty which was required to be paid and have availed higher quantum of refund under exemption Notification no.56/2002-CE. It is on this basis that after issue of show cause notice, the jurisdictional Dy. Commissioner vide order-in-origina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application, that the duty has been correctly paid by the appellant on the FOR price which includes the element of freight upto the customer s premises and hence, the exemption has been correctly availed, and that in view of this, the impugned order is not correct. 5. Shri Jayant Sahai, the learned DR, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in it. However, he conceded that para-6 of the show cause notice itself mentions that the sales of the appellant to their customers are on FOR basis. 6. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 7. The point of dispute in this case is as to whether the appellant were required to pay duty on the FOR price which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
