2017 (10) TMI 1173

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ght is charges at equalised basis - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Dr. Satish Chandra, President and Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Sh. V. R. Sethi, Advocate for the appellant Sh. S. K. Bansal, AR for the respondent ORDER Per: Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra: The appellant has filed appeal against the order-in-appeal No.64/CE/DLH/ 2014 dated 28.04.2014 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. The period of dispute is 2000 -01 to 2003 -2004. 2. During the period under consideration, the appellant were manufacturing of electricity supply meter which were sold to various Electricity Board at factory gate against the rate contract. However, in terms of the agreement, the goods were delive .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sidered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 7. There is no dispute that the sales were at the factory gate and the amount of freight, though charged at equalised basis, was being separately mentioned in the invoices. In our view, when the sales are at the factory gate, the deduction of freight has to be allowed even if the freight is charges at equalised basis in view of Apex Court judgment in the case of Union of India vs. Bombay Tyre International reported in 1982 (14) ELT 1896 (SC). Moreover, the same view has been taken by the Apex Court in the cases of VIP Industries Ltd. (supra) and Accurate Meters Ltd. (supra). 8. Further, it appears that the identical issue has come up before the Hon'ble Supreme Cou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... were correct in their view that the amount claimed by way of transportation charges and insurance cannot be considered for determining the value of the electric meters supplied". 9. On the other hand, Sh. S. K. Bansal, ld. AR relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CC&CE, Aurangabad vs. Roofit Industries Ltd. - 2015 (319) ELT 221 (SC), but the fact remains that the ratio laid down (supra) was over ruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CC&CE, Nagpur vs. Ispat Industries Ltd. - 2015 (324) ELT 670 (S.C.). 10. In the light of above discussion and by considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any reason to sustain the impugned order and the same is hereby set asi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X