9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 409X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the duty payable on the value addition made on the final products cleared by them. There are two disputes in these bunch of appeals. The first one is with reference to eligibility of the appellant for refund of education/ higher education cess paid by them on such final products. The Revenue entertained a view that such cess is not refundable as no exemption is provided for the same. 2. On the issue relating to refund of education cess, both the sides agreed that the issue stands covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in SRD Nutrients Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Guwahati 2017 TIOL 416 SC CX. As such, following the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court who held that the assessee is eligible for such refund which is paid alongwith the excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant should form part of the assessable value in such FOR sale. In this connection, we note that the learned AR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CCE, Nagpur vs. Ispat Industries Ltd. 2015 (324) E.L.T. 670 (S.C.). In the said decision the Apex court held under no circumstances can the buyer s premises, therefore, be the place of removal for the purpose of Section 4 on the facts of the present case . The Apex court also distinguished their earlier decision in Rooffit Industries 2015 (319) E.L.T. 221 (S.C.). The Apex Court observed as below :- "16. It will thus be seen that where the price at which goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee is different for different places of removal, then each such price shall be dee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... depot, consignment agents premises etc. from where such excisable goods were sold. Admittedly, the goods sold by the appellant delivered at the buyers premises will not make the place of removal as buyers premises. Following the ratio of the Apex court in Ispat Industries Ltd. (supra), we hold that there is no justification for the appellant to consider the assessable value with inclusion of freight element after the goods were sold/removed from the factory. As such, the question of paying duty on such value addition to be covered by the exemption under Notification 56/2002-CE does not arise. Accordingly, we hold the claim of the appellant in these appeals are not sustainable. 6. To sum up, the appeal on the eligibility of the appellant f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
