9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the case is that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods i.e. LPG self closing valves falling under CSH 8481.80 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Appellants are raising commercial invoices wherein in addition to the value shown in the central excise invoice, indicated the amount of freight charges and collected the same from the customers. The said freight charges shown on commercial invoices are not included in the assessable value. The show cause notice was issued proposing to charge excise duty on the amount of the freight indicated in the commercial invoices and collected the same from customers for the period 1/7/2000 to 31/3/2003. The adjudicating authority in the Order-in-Original confirmed the demand of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iance of Rule 5 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. He submits that identical issue has been decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the following judgments: (a) Commissioner of Cus. & C. Ex. Nagpur Vs. Ispat Industries Ltd[2015(324) ELT 670(S.C.)] (b) Commissioner of C. Ex. Mumbai-III Vs. Hind Rectifiers Ltd[2015(322) ELT 191(S.C.)] (c) Escorts JCB Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-II[2002(146) ELT 31(S.C.)] 4. Shri. N.N. Prabhudesai, Ld. Superintendent(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that as per the statement given by the representative of the appellant that the term of sale is that the delivery of the goods has to be given to the buyer therefore th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be charged thereon. The adjudicating authority, in the adjudication order has accepted that the sale is at factory gate therefore place of removal is the factory gate and as per Rule 5 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 freight amount is not chargeable to excise duty. Moreover during the period 1.7.2000 to 31.3.2003 the definition of place of removal was restricted to the factory gate or the depot. The premises of the buyer could not have been the place of removal. The costs incurred beyond the place of removal could not be included in the assessable value. Thus cost of transportation beyond the factory gate or the depot could not possibly form part of assessable value. Freight was incurred beyond the factory gate and therefore could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
