9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 504X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry i.e. the tower components. Place of removal - HELD THAT:- The contract dated 18/2/2005 placed by Airtel specifically mentions that the rate will be on FOR site basis . This clearly points to the fact that the sale of goods is deemed to have happened at the site. This further points to the fact that the Place of Removal is to be considered as the site and not the factory gate - In terms of Section 4 as above, read with Rule 5 of the Rules, it emerges that since the place of removal in the present case, in respect of the Airtel contract, is the premises of the site installation, the cost of transportation of the tower materials from the factory gate to the site will need to be included in the value and to be added to the supply cost. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hattopadhyay, Supdt. (A.R.) For the Respondent (s) ORDER PER SHRI V. PADMANABHAN The present appeals are against the Order-in-Original No.10/COMMISSIONER/CE/ KOL-VII/ADJN./2008-09 dated-30.01.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-VII. The appellant is engaged in the fabrication of Iron Steel structures. The period of dispute is 2005-06 and 2007-2008. During this period, the appellant received several purchase orders from Mobile Service providers such as M/s. Airtel and Vodaphone. As per the terms of these purchase orders, the appellant was required to fabricate and supply mobile towers. Such towers were required to be installed at the destination specified by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntral Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant-assessee as well as Shri Siddhartha Baid have filed the present appeals challenging the above order which is taken up for a decision through this common order. 3. The appellants are represented by Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, Ld. Consultant and the Revenue is represented by Shri S.S. Chattopadhyay, Ld. A.R. 4. The Ld. Consultant submitted that the demand for differential duty is not justified for the following reasons: i) He submitted that the goods are fabricated in the appellant s factory and cleared in dismantled form to the site of the client. At the site, the other activities i.e. erection, installation and painting are completed. The resultant product ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and as such, the expenses incurred till the sale of goods i.e. transportation charges, erection charges and painting are rightly includible in the assessable value for payment of Central Excise Duty. 6. We have heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 7. The appellant/assessee has manufactured and cleared mobile phone towers. The Towers were cleared in dismantled form from the factory and transported to the sites as per the requirement of the buyers and erected, installed and painted at the sites. The contract placed by the buyers was a consolidated contract including supply, transportation and also carrying out other activities at the site. However, separate amounts have been indicated for supply co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for payment of excise duty gets crystalised at the factory gate and such liability is for the goods in the form in which they are cleared from the factory i.e. the tower components. 11. The second related question is the Place of Removal. We have perused two sample contracts which are part of the appeal papers. The contract dated 18/2/2005 placed by Airtel specifically mentions that the rate will be on FOR site basis . This clearly points to the fact that the sale of goods is deemed to have happened at the site. This further points to the fact that the Place of Removal is to be considered as the site and not the factory gate. 12. Section 4(3)(c) defines Place of Removal as follows : Place ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct to arrive at the conclusion, where the sale of goods has taken place. 14. Next we turn to the issue whether the installation, erection and painting charges are required to be added to the supply cost of towers for payment of duty. The Adjudicating authority has held that once place of removal is decided, all expenses incurred upto that place is required to be added. As such, he has loaded the installation cost. We find it difficult to accept this proposition. We have taken the view that the tower is to be assessed in the form in which it is cleared from the appellant s factory i.e. in dismantled form. Once we take the view that the excise duty liability is on the goods in the form it is cleared from the factory, it follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
