9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1052X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earing the drum on payment of excise duty on factory value of the goods. However, the goods were not sold but being transported to Hyderabad to M/s Rajkamal Transporter. As per the agreement between the appellants and transporter, the transporter was required to warehouse the goods in transporter's warehouse. As and when they were getting order from one M/s Gayatri Starchem, they were directin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quired to be added. The learned AR also relied upon this Tribunal's judgment in the case of Hard Castle Petrofer Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jammu reported in 2014 (304) ELT 576 (Tri-Del) to support his contention. 4. We have considered the submissions. There is no dispute about the fact that the goods are not sold and these are cleared from the factory, but these are transp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... premises, or the appellant were required to pay duty on the value of the goods at the factory gate i.e. FOR price minus freight charges from the factory gate to the customers' premises. The show cause notice while mentioning in Para 6 that the sales of the appellant are on FOR basis, still invokes Rule 5 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 for excluding the element of freight from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovides of exclusion of freight from the place of removal to place of delivery, has no application to this case and as such, has been wrongly invoked. The appellant, therefore, have correctly paid the duty on the FOR price and have correctly availed the exemption. The impugned order, therefore, is not sustainable and the same is set aside." 5. In view of the above factual position as also the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
