9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accordingly, appellant have supplied the goods and raised invoices for the price of goods and the transportation. Thus, it amounts to showing the cost of transport separately in the invoices. The place of removal is factory gate, however the goods were delivered at customer place. Therefore goods were sold for delivery not at the place of removal (i.e. factory gate) but at other place i.e. customer door step. On perusal of copies of the purchase orders placed by the M/s Western Coalfields Ltd., Nagpur and M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and invoices issued by the Appellant. From the invoices it is seen that the freight shown in the invoices is in addition to basic price of the goods. It is clear from the terms of the purchase order that basic p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been upheld. 1.1 Brief facts of the case are that during the course of audit it was noticed that appellant was clearing their goods on FOR basis and they were collecting transportation charges from their buyers and were showing the same separately in their sales invoices. However they have not included the transportation charges/ freight charges in their assessable value during the period from 2010-11 to December 2013. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant and subsequently demand was confirmed by the Original Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original dated 31.05.2016. The appeal thereof has been dismissed by Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 05.08.2016. Being aggrieved by the impugned Ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rules for determination of price of Excisable Goods, 2000, which has been a subject matter of litigations and accordingly the suppression of fact by invoking the extended period is not justifiable. Show cause notice dated 21.01.2016 issued proposing the demand of differential excise duty on freight amount for the period from January 2011 to December 2013, is patently time barred. 3. Shri P Ganesan Ld. Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue involved in the present case is that whether the freight charged separately in the sale invoices of excisa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ansportation from the factory to the place of removal, where the factory is not the place of removal, shall not be excluded for the purposes of determining the value of the excisable goods . From the above rule it can be seen that when goods are sold for delivery at a place other than place of removal, transaction value of excisable goods shall not include actual cost of transportation from the place of removal up to the place of delivery of such excisable goods. As per the rule reproduced above, in order to allow the deduction of the cost of transportation following criterion should be fulfilled : (a) The goods should be sold for delivery at a place other than place of removal. (b) Cost of freight should be in addition to the price for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
