9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o place of delivery. The place of removal is 'the factory gate of the appellant, and cost of transport charges and transit insurance cannot be included in the assessable value - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No.E/3402/2012 And E/22771-22772/2014 - FINAL ORDER No.A/30845 to 30847/2016 - Dated:- 12-9-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri S. Narayanan, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Arun Kumar, Asst. Commissioner(AR) for the respondent. [Order per: Madhu Mohan Damodhar] The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture and clearances of battery chargers and allied products falling under chapter sub-heading No.85044030 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 The appellants supplied Battery chargers of various capacities to various etc., upon the agreement / supply order given by the customers. The departmental authorities observed that the purchase orders were for mainly manufacture, supply and erection of the goods supplied and the transportation clauses included in the purchase orders stipulated for F.O.R destination. It appeared to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - works price paid for the final product sold to them. f) The transfer of ownership and title to goods passes no sooner the impugned goods are loaded on to the truck arranged for transportation of their goods on their behalf. g) The arrangement of transport of goods on their behalf to be delivered at customers' premises, considering the term as FOR destination, has no nexus to transfer of title and sale of goods, which has been wrongly interpreted in the impugned show cause notice and in the Order in Original and Order in Appeal, as the sale and title to goods passes no sooner the goods are loaded on to the truck, since it is a Sale of goods with a clear Ex- works price established in purchase order read with tender terms. h) Since the transport charges are separately indicated in the PO as per their tender and that such freight charges are separately reimbursed by the customer, with a separate Ex-works price determined for the products, the said transport of goods are necessarily arranged for and on behalf of the customer based on commercial terms FOR. i) The terms and conditions of the sale are clear that the sale is Ex-works at their factory. The impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng and Transit Insurance: To be borne by Firm Freight: Extra @Rs. 7600per IPS Installation Commissioning charges: Extra @ ₹ 24541.65 per IPS (inclusive of service tax @10.3 %) 6. From the above, what emerges is that while the appellant does have to arrange for transportation of the goods to the stores of Railways, the costs thereof is reimbursed by the latter. This being so, in our opinion the ratio of Roofit Industries case(supra) cited by Ld. AR will not apply since the facts are different. In the Roofit case, price of the goods was inclusive of transportation. Secondly it was manifest that sale of goods therein did not take place at factory gate of assessee but at the place of the buyer, on the delivery of the goods in question. However in the instant case, inspection of the goods was required to be done by Railways at appellant's factory, only after which the goods could be despatched. A perusal of sample inspection certificate dated 10.08.2009 certifies that: Stores put up for inspection on : lnspeeted on: Last date of Delivery: 1. The-stores mentioned on the reverse were finally inspected and passed 2. The stores were ten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te, therefore, the place of removal was not the premises of the buyer. It was also held that in that event, the amount claimed by way of transportation charge cannot be considered for determining the value of the goods. 3. In our considered opinion, identical are the facts of this case with that of the said decision in Escorts JCB Ltd. (supra). There is yet another decision of this Court which is rendered in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida v. Accurate Meters Limited - 2009 (6) SCC 52 = 2009 (235) 581 (S.C.) wherein this Court approved the decisions rendered by the Tribunal in Associated Strips Ltd. (supra) and Escorts JCB Ltd. (supra). This Court held that the amount by way of transportation charges and insurance cannot be considered for determining the value of electric meter supply. 4. our considered opinion, the ratio laid down by this Court it he aforesaid two decisions are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, ' there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed leaving the parties to bear thier own cost So also, the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Thane Vs Maharastra Control Panels Pvt -Mum has held as follows; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
