9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2001 was served on the appellant as a consequence of audit undertaken by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The audit objection was subsequently converted into Draft Audit Para to which the Additional Secretary, Department of Revenue gave his response on behalf of the Department denying the objection. However, the adjudicating authority went ahead and confirmed the demand of central excise duty raised in the show cause notice. 2. The goods manufactured in the factory were sold partly from their stockyards and partly ex-works. For the clearances made through stock yards, the appellant included the freight charges from the factory gate to the stockyard and paid duty on such prices. The CAG audit team observed that in respect of goods clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delivered at the Railway siding closest to the buyer from where they made their own arrangements for transporting the goods. He argued that with the issue of Railway Receipt, the title of the goods stand transferred to the buyers. In this connection he referred to Section 2(iv) of the Sale Goods Act, 1930, wherein the definition of the term "document of title to goods" includes Railway Receipts. Further, he referred to Section 39 ibid , wherein delivery of goods to carrier is to be considered as delivery of goods to the buyer. He submitted that the goods stand sold to the customer at the factory gate and there is no justification for inclusion of freight. iii) He relied on several case laws including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s taking possession of the goods from the respective branches would indicate that sale is not at the factory gate and hence, freight charges are required to be added to the assessable value of the goods. 6. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 7. The dispute has originated with the objections raised by the C&AG, during the course of audit. The objection was not admitted even at the DAP stage, but still the ld. Commissioner has passed the impugned order confirming the demand. From the audit objection it would appear that the dispute pertains to the value of goods cleared ex-works, by dispatch through Railways to the Railway Siding closest to the buyer. The Railway freight has been paid by the appellant and recovered separatel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 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. The reply given by the Additional Secretary, Department of Revenue to the PAC is also on the above lines. 10. When we peruse the impugned order, we notice that the adjudicating authority has proceeded to decide the issue by considering the dispute as if it pertains to clearances made through stockyards. He 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 Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
