9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Mumbai-III confirming the demand of Rs. 53,13,522/- on account of the transportation and insurance charges which were not shown separately in the invoice in term of Rule 5 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. 3. The appellant are manufacturer of paper products, mainly packagin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he place of removal, then the value of such excisable good shall be deemed to be the transaction value, excluding the actual cost of transportation from the place of removal upto the place of delivery of such excisable goods provided the cost of transportation is charged to the buyer in addition to the price for the goods and shown separately in the invoice for such excisable goods. And, according ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... By recovering the amount separately from their buyers it is conclusively proved that the sale is not complete at the factory gate.........." The only reasoning given by the Commissioner is that there was no necessity to recover freight charges separately on account of transportation. We do not agree with this reasoning because, effectively, the payment for purchase in this case has been split int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shik Vs. Techno Force (I) Pvt. Ltd. - 2014 (310) ELT 951 (Tri. - Mumbai). (iv) Goodyear India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Delhi-IV - 2014 (301) ELT 410 (Tri.-Del). The learned A.R. placed reliance on the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Aurangabad Vs. M/s Roofit Industries Ltd. - 2015-TIOL-87-SC-CX. We have seen the judgment. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
