9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 575X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h. R. K. Mishra, AR For the Respondent : Shri Arun Pathak, Advocate ORDER Per: V. Padmanabhan: Brief facts of the case are that the respondent are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under chapter headings 73.07 and 86.07 of the Central Excise Tariff for supply to various Circles of Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and its successor Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity vide order dated 31.08.2006. Since this demand was held to be unsustainable by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 29.12.2006, the Revenue is in appeal. 2. The main argument putforth by the respondent was that, since the delivery is FOR destination, a deduction for transportation charges will have to be allowed under Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 5 of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds. Explanation 1.- "Cost of transportation" includes- (i) the actual cost of transportation ; and (ii) in case where freight is averaged, the cost of transportation calculated in accordance with generally accepted principles of costing. Explanation 2. - For removal of doubts, it is clarified that the cost of transportation from the factory to the place of removal, where the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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. customer door step. We have perused a copy of the bid as well as the purchase order placed by the DoT and some sample invoices issued by the respondent. From the sample invoices i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
