9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. On perusal of copies of the purchase contract placed by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd and Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. and invoices issued by the Appellant. From the invoices, it is seen that the freight/insurance shown in the invoices is in addition to basic price of the goods. It is clear from the terms of the purchase contract that basic price and other components have to be indicated separately. Therefore, there is no dispute that basic price and the freight/insurance components are clearly indicated separately in the invoices and therefore criterion i.e. cost of transpor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in contract with IOCL, HPCL. As per the contract the appellant is responsible for delivery of goods to the destination of different location as mentioned in contract. The case of the department is that the freight/insurance charges collected by the appellant in addition to the price of the goods is includible in the transaction value and excise duty is chargeable on such freight/ insurance charges. Accordingly, two show cause notices were issued to the appellant and subsequently demand was confirmed by the Original Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original dated 30.12.2015. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order, appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. Shri Nimish K Oza, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e audit department. He referred to the copies of audit reports which are placed on page 34 to 49 of the appeal memo. Therefore there is no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant. 3. Shri Ajay Kumar Samota, Learned 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/insurance charged separately in the sale invoices of excisable goods is includible in the assessable value of such excisable goods. 4.1 Having considered the rival contention we find that freight/insurance have been charged separately and received separately. We also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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/insurance should be in addition to the price for the goods. (c) Cost of transportation should be shown separately in the invoices. 4.3 As regards the first criterion, the place of removal is factory gate, however the goods were delivered at customer place. Therefore goods were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
