9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant. Shri D.H. Nadkarni, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER The appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. CEX.IX/JMJ/328/916/ APL/NSK/2004, dated 13-8-2004 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Nashik. 2. The respondent, M/s. General Metallisers Ltd. is a manufacturer of Metallised Paper/Paper products falling under Chapter 48 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Section 11AB ibid and also proposing to impose penalty under Section 11AC. Notice was adjudicated and demands were confirmed. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant approached the lower appellate authority, who came to the conclusion that the place of removal remains the factory and therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay excise duty on the freight and insurance charges recovered from thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the instant case and therefore, the impugned order is bad in law. 4. The ld. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the impugned order has been correctly passed as there is no dispute about the place of removal which remains the factory gate. Only in a few cases at the request of the customers, the goods were delivered at their premises for which the respondent made necess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 impugned order passed by the lower appellate authority. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal filed by the Reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
