9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1023X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order-in-original dated 28/9/2001 and rejected the appeal of the appellant. The facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of PIJF falling under Chapter 85 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Appellants have cleared excisable goods viz. Jelly filled cable to the to the department of telecommunication and claimed deduction on account of freight from the assessable value-. Revenue has issued a show cause notice No. F. No. V.Ch. 85(15) 23/SSIL/(JFTC) Adj/2001 dated 2/3/2001 wherein deduction on account of freight was proposed to be denied and consequently demand of duty of Rs. 29,29,426/- for the period from 7/2000 to 1/2001 was issued. In the show cause notice it was contended that the deduction on account of fre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts that in the show cause notice, adjudication order and order-in-appeal authorities have misunderstood the nature of freight whether it is actual freight or equated freight and the whole case has proceeded on the apprehension of the officers that freight is equated freight. He submitted some sample invoices from which he pointed out that the freight charges in the sale invoices is actual freight and not equated freight. Since entire case has been proceeded on the assumption that the freight charges by the appellant is equated and not the actual freight, he submits that authorities have proceed on the wrong assumption. He submits that the appellant right from the adjudication stage have been submitting freight charges as actual freight whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per the condition of supply it is obligations on the appellant to ensure the quality testing at the place of delivery with this fact sale of the goods is taken place at the place of delivery and not at the place of removal therefore deduction of transportation is not allowable. In this support, he placed reliance on following judgment: (a) Hard Castle Petrofer Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Jammu(J&K)[2014(304) ELT 576 (Tri- Del.)] (b) Commissioner of C. Ex. Chandigarh Vs. Punjab Tractor Ltd. [2010(259) ELT 123(Tri. Del.)] He also taken support of Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi M.F. (D.R.) F. No. 354/81/2000-TRU dated 30/6/2000. He submits that in view of the judgments and Board circular, deduction on account of tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation will be treated as non-responsive and rejected. 9.4 The unit prices quoted by the bidder shall be in sufficient detail to enable the purchaser to arrive at prices of equipment/system offered. 9.5 DISCOUNT, if any, offered by the bidders shall not be considered unless they are specially indicated in the price schedule. Bidders desiring to offer discount shall therefore modify their offers suitable while quoting and shall quote clearly net price taking all such factors like Discount, free supply, etc. into account. 9.6 The price approved by the Department for procurement will inclusive of levies and taxes, packing, forwarding, freight and insurance as mentioned in para 9.1 above. Break-up in various heads like ED, sales tax, insuranc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iding factor, that the goods sold at place other than place of removal. It is general trade practice whenever any technical equipment is sold, the supplier is duty bound to erect, install and test the function of the equipment at the consumer s place. For example Air Condition, refrigeration, telephone, computer etc.. In all such technical equipment the installation and testing is invariably carried out at the place of consumer. Therefore depending upon the nature of the product this installation/testing cannot be criteria that the goods are sold at the consumer s place. When the terms of the bid as mentioned above, as regard fact of place of sale, it is clear that sale of the goods has taken place at the time of removal of the goods from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p to the place of delivery of such excisable goods. As per the rule reproduced above, in order to allow the deduction of the cost of transportation following criterion should be fulfilled: (a) The goods should be sold for delivery at a place other than place of removal. (b) Cost of freight should be in addition to the price for the goods. (c) Cost of transportation should shown separately in the invoices. To ensure the above, it is pertinent to look at the invoices scanned copy which is reproduced below:- As regard the first criterion, the place of removal is factory gate, however the goods were delivered at customer place therefore goods were sold for delivery not at the place of removal (i.e. factory gate) but at other place i.e. cus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
