9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 663X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red in light of the provisions of the Act of 1930 as held by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Aurangabad vs. Roofit Industries Limited [ 2015 (4) TMI 857 - SUPREME COURT] - As per the facts prevailing in the case at hand, the goods in question were exported from a port. Thus, unquestionably, ownership of the goods would be transferred to the buyer, moment the shipping bill is filed and the goods are handed over to the shipping line. At any point of time before this transaction, the manufacturer would have the option to retain/ call back or to deal with the goods in any other manner desired. Thus, the export order/ sale would fructify/be fulfilled only when the goods are handed over to the shipp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted till that point of time. Thus, the observations made by the Commissioner (Appeals) clarifying that the circular dated 28.02.2015 is not restricted for availment of CENVAT Credit and would also be applicable on rebate of excise duty is the correct interpretation on facts and law. Thus, the order passed by the Revisionary Authority dated 19.12.2019 does not stand to scrutiny and is hereby reversed and set aside - petition allowed. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA And HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Johari, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Shubhankar Johari Mr. Lalit Parihar. For the Respondent : Mr. Rajvendra Saraswat , Mr. Pramod Panwar JUDGMENT REPORTABLE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... place of removal and accordingly, the rebate claims were accepted and a sum of Rs.13,00,485/- was sanctioned as rebate in favour of the petitioner alongwith credit of Rs.5,944/- in the CENVAT Credit account. Aggrieved of the order dated 01.07.2016 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, the Department preferred appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Central Goods and Services Tax, Jodhpur which came to be rejected by order dated 26.10.2017. While rejecting the appeals, the Appellate Authority referred to the order passed by the Revisionary Authority of the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India whereby, revision involving identical issue was dismissed observing that in case of export, the place of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ale of Goods Act, 1930 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1930 ). All charges incurred prior to transfer of ownership of goods to the buyer are to be included in valuation. He submitted that the circular dated 28.02.2015 makes it very clear that in cases of export, the transfer of property takes place at the port where the goods are delivered by the exporter, the shipping bill is filed and as such, place of removal would be the Port. He argued that the view taken by the Revisionary Authority that the sale was concluded the moment the goods left the factory, is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act 1930; the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Aurangabad vs. Roofit In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of sale/place of removal in case of goods being exported. Suffice it to say that the provisions of Sale of Goods Act, 1930 would govern the issue. The determinative factor as to when ownership of the goods is transferred from seller to buyer has to be considered in light of the provisions of the Act of 1930 as held by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Aurangabad vs. Roofit Industries Limited (supra). As per the facts prevailing in the case at hand, the goods in question were exported from a port. Thus, unquestionably, ownership of the goods would be transferred to the buyer, moment the shipping bill is filed and the goods are handed over to the shipping line. At any point of time before this tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade by Hon ble the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Aurangabad vs. Roofit Industries Limited (supra): 13. The principle of law, thus, is crystal clear. It is to be seen as to whether as to at what point of time sale is effected namely whether it is on factory gate or at a later point of time i.e. when the delivery of the goods is effected to the buyer at his premises. This aspect is to be seen in the light of provisions of the Sale of Goods Act by applying the same to the facts of each case to determine as to when the ownership in the goods is transferred from the seller to the buyer. The charges which are to be added have put up to the stage of the transfer of that ownership inasmuch as once the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
