9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods have been sold. Further, there is no removal of the goods at the buyer s premises because the place of removal requires the goods to be removed from that place. Thirdly, the description of the place of removal are the depot, consignment agent etc. which can only be referred to the seller and not to the buyer. Hon ble Apex Court in the case of COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD VERSUS M/S ROOFIT INDUSTRIES LTD. [ 2015 (4) TMI 857 - SUPREME COURT] has categorically held that under no circumstances can the buyer s premises be the place of removal. It also made it clear that this fact was not brought to the attention of the Court when the earlier orders were passed - it is now well settled that the buyers premises c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emises, all expenses incurred up to the buyers premises including the transportation thereof are includable in the assessable value as per Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944. The reason for this is place of removal as per Section 4 (b) (iii) is a depot, 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 and from where, such goods are removed . This expression has been interpreted by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Roofit Industries Limited [2015(319) ELT 221 (S.C.)], para 12 of which reads as follows: 12 . The principle of law, thus, is crystal clear. It is to be seen as to whether as to at what point of time sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er s premises is not includable in the assessable value, on the ground that the sale on Ex.works basis and therefore the ownership of the goods gets transferred to the buyer at the factory gate only and the additional amount towards transportation of the goods to the buyer s premises collected by the assessee does not found part of the assessable value. The remaining appeals are filed by the assessees against the impugned orders which held that the freight from the factory/depot to the buyer s premises is includable in the assessable value. 6. In some appeals, the demand were contested on merits only but in others, they were contested both on merits and limitation. It is the case of the appellants that the buyer s premises can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... substituted by the words have been sold which would then possibly have reference to the buyer s premises. 24 . It will thus be seen that, in law, it is clear that for the period from 28-9-1996 up to 1-7-2000, the place of removal has reference only to places from which goods are to be sold by the manufacturer, and has no reference to the place of delivery which may be either the buyer s premises or such other premises as the buyer may direct the manufacturer to send his goods. As a matter of law therefore, the Commissioner s order and Revenue s argument based on that order that freight charges must be included as the sale in the present facts took place at the buyer s premises is incorrect. Further, for the period 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pression also shows that the depot, premises of a consignment agent, etc. are places which belong to the seller and not to the buyer. Therefore, the Hon ble Apex Court has held that the buyers premises can never be the place of removal in the landmark judgment of Ispat Industries Limited. 8. In view of the above, the freight incurred for transporting the goods from the place of removal i.e., factory or depot or premises of the consignment agent up to the buyers premises can in no circumstances be included in the assessable value. Any demand of Central Excise duty on such freight needs to be set aside. 9. The Ld. DR argued that Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Ispat Industries Limited was seized of the matter prio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dable in the assessable value where the sale is for delivery at the buyer s premises because that is where the ownership changes in terms of Sale of Goods Act. In the case of Ispat Industries Limited, it was held that the buyers premises can never ever be a place of removal. Although the case pertained to the period before the amendment to Section 4 as above, the Hon ble Apex Court has discussed the issue both prior to its amendment and after it, in para 16 of its judgment as discussed above. It has been held that if the intention was to cover the expenses up to the place where the goods have been sold, the Section would have said so but the expression is goods are to be sold . Therefore, the place of removal is before the goods are sold, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
