9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 392X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h respect to OIA No. 65-CE/ALLD/2006 dated 29/05/2006. As the issue involved in both these proceedings is the same, therefore, both are being taken up for disposal under this common order. M/s Anand Transformers (P) Ltd. also filed Cross Objection No. 59/2007 with respect to appeal No. E/2388/2006 filed by the Revenue. 2. Shri R.K. Gupta, (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that appellant has not discharged Central Excise duty with respect to the freight from the factory to the point of delivery when contracts are on FOR destination basis and the transportation charges and transit insurance are also borne by the respondents. Learned AR made the Bench go through the purchase orders and the transportation agreement entered by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Noida vs. Accurate Meters Ltd. (supra) where the product involved was electricity meters supplied to State Electricity Boards and two separate contracts for sale of meters and for transportation and transit insurance were entered with the customers. In para 12 to 15 of the above case law Hon'ble Apex court held as follows :- 12. We have noticed hereinbefore that there were two separate contracts; one for sale of Electricity Meters which was governed by the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, and the other governing transportation of the goods. The charges for transportation of the goods were not on actual basis. Respondent was bound to transport the goods from the factory gate to the place of the State Electricity Boards at the rates spe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct of sale, the seller is authorised or required to send the goods to the buyer, delivery of the goods to a carrier, whether named by the buyer or not, for the purpose of transmission to the buyer, is prima facie deemed to be a delivery of the goods to the buyer AIR 1966 Patna 346, admittedly, in the present case after appropriation of the good to the contract they were delivered to the carrier as per terms of the contract. Therefore, delivery to the carrier has to be taken as delivery to buyer. Revenue has no case that the goods are not sent to the buyer through carrier. On the other hand, as mentioned earlier, the only contention raised is that since the insurance of the goods in transit. At this juncture we may point out that in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case. If the seller omits so do, and the goods are lost or damaged in course of transit or whilst in the custody of the wharfinger, the buyer may decline to treat the delivery to the carrier or wharfinger as a delivery to himself, or may hold the seller responsible in damages. (3) Unless otherwise agreed, where goods are sent by the seller to the buyer by a route involving sea transit, in circumstances in which it is usual to insure, the seller shall give such notice to the buyer as may enable him to insure them during their sea transit, and if the seller fails to do, the goods shall be deemed to be at his risk during such sea transit. The factual matrix involved in this case is squarely applicable to the ratio of the decisions in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
