Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (9) TMI 1428

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ace of removal - Held that:- The appellant is claiming that the goods were sold on FOR basis and as such the place of removal is the delivery point to the buyer. The freight element incurred by the appellant should form part of the assessable value in such FOR sale - Hon’ble Supreme Court in CCE, Nagpur vs. Ispat Industries Limited [2015 (10) TMI 613 - SUPREME COURT] held that “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 impugned order records that the appellant has not produced anything on record which would show that they had cleared the goods from the factory gate to a warehouse, any other premises, a depot, consignment agents .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... llant is having a manufacturing unit availing area based exemption under Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002. There are various issues contested in the present appeals. 3. The first one is with reference to eligibility of the appellant for refund of education cess and higher education cess paid on final products cleared by them. Both the sides agreed that the issue stands covered by the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in M/s. SRD Nutrients Pvt. Limited vs CCE, Guwahati - 2017 (355) ELT 481 (SC). The Apex court held that the assessee will be eligible for education cess/ higher education cess paid on excise duty, when the excise duty itself is exempted from levy. By following the said ratio, the first dispute is decide .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 deemed to be the normal value thereof. Sub-clause (b)(iii) is very important and makes it clear that a depot, the premises of a consignment agent, or any other place or premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory are all places of removal. What is important to note is that each of these premises is referable only to the manufacturer and not to the buyer .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 this appeal is not sustainable. 7. The third issue is with reference to eligibility in terms of Notification No. 19/2008-CE dated 27.03.2008 and 34/2008-CE dated 10.06.2008, whether the appellants are entitled to claim refund/self-credit as restricted by these notifications or not. After hearing the parties, we find that the notifications in question have been examined by the Hon ble J K High Court in the case of Reckit Benckiser vs. UOI 2011 (269) ELT 194 (J K), wherein t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nces made for the first time. However, when the some of the goods were rejected and returned to the appellant for further process, wherever required and on completion of the same, they have discharged the duty again and cleared the same. The procedure for return of duty paid goods, re-credit of duty already paid and liability to pay duty when the goods were again cleared after reprocessing etc. are governed by Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, which are available to the appellants also. The view of the Revenue that Notification No. 56/2002 is available only once, is neither justified nor legally supported. 10. Ld. AR contested the appeal and submitted that though the notification did not elaborately discuss the procedure to be f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates