9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uments specified in Section 2(iv) of the Sale Goods Act as document of title to the Goods - As per Section 39 ibid, delivery of goods to the carrier is to be considered as delivery of goods to the buyer. In view of the above it is clear that the goods stand sold to the buyer at the factory gate. The factory being the place of removal, there is no mandate for adding freight charges. Scope of SCN - HELD THAT:- The case decided by the adjudicating authority is entirely different from the case made out in the show cause notice issued on the basis of the C AG objection. Since the adjudicating authority has discussed and decided an issue which was not the subject matter of show cause notice - impugned order cannot be sustained. The issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... am observed that in respect of goods cleared ex-works, the freight charges incurred by them at the behest of customers in transferring the goods from their factory to the railway stockyards (closest to the customer and from where the customer collected the goods), were collected separately in the sales invoices but not included in the value for payment of duty. The CAG was of the opinion that such freight charges were required to be included for payment of duty.The ld. adjudicating authority confirmed the proposal made in the show cause notice and demanded duty alongwith interest as well as penalties. This order is under challenge in the present appeal. 3. The appellant is represented by Dr. S.Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate and Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iii) He relied on several case laws including the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. [2015(324) ELT 670 (S.C.)]. Adverting to the said decision, he submitted that the Supreme Court in the above case has considered various amendments made to Section -4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The period of dispute was prior to the amendment of Section 4 in the year 2000, when the concept of transaction value was introduced. He particularly referred to the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 17 of the decision which pertained to the period of dispute. The Supreme Court has observed that during this period the place of removal only has reference to places from which the manufacturer is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dispatch through Railways to the Railway Siding closest to the buyer. The Railway freight has been paid by the appellant and recovered separately. The C AG s objection was that such freight charges are required to be included in the value of the goods. 8. During the course of hearing of the appeal, the ld. Senior Advocate has taken pains to explain that the appellants have two modes of clearance (i) clearances through stockyards in which as per the internal price circular, the appellant includes the freight charges from the factory gate up to the stockyards and (ii) ex-works sales. This category of sale is the subject matter of the C AG objection. 9. In the case of disputed clearanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has concluded that freight charges are required to be included since goods are removed from the stockyards. He has considered the stockyards as the place of removal. 11. After perusing the impugned Order-in-Original, we find that the case decided by the adjudicating authority is entirely different from the case made out in the show cause notice issued on the basis of the C AG objection. Since the adjudicating authority has discussed and decided an issue which was not the subject matter of show cause notice, we find that the impugned order cannot be sustained. 12. In view of the above the impugned order is set aside and the issue is remanded back to the adjudicating authority for passing denovo order in the light ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
