9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the customers. In the Order-in-Original, the adjudicating authority has given a clear finding that there is no dispute about the place of removal which is the factory. If there is no dispute about the place of removal, the question of invoking Rule 5 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 would not arise at all. In view of the above factual position, we do not find any infirmity in the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... requested that delivery be made at their premises and undertook to reimburse the freight and insurance charges. Accordingly, goods were delivered at the buyer s premises by making necessary arrangements for transportation and insurance. However, the freight and insurance charges were collected separately through debit notes and it was not indicated in the invoice. Therefore, a show cause notice w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Accordingly, the order of the adjudicating authority was set aside. Aggrieved of the same, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 3. It is the contention of the Revenue that since the goods have been delivered at the premises of the customers, in terms of Rule 5 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, the appellant is liable to discharge excise duty on the freight and insurance charges and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in all these cases, the place of removal is ex-factory only and therefore, the question of inclusion of freight and insurance charges to the ex-factory price does not arise. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 5.1 We have perused the show cause notice and the order of the adjudicating authority. As per the show cause notice, the goods have been sold ex-fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
