9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 858X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR VERSUS M/S ISPAT INDUSTRIES LTD. [ 2015 (10) TMI 613 - SUPREME COURT ] has held The fact in the present case 'deliverable state of goods, arises only at the time of safe delivery of goods at the customers' premises specified in the purchase order However, with reference to section 24 of the Sales of Goods Act, it was observed that in the instant case the property in the goods have passed only at the site of buyer. Therefore such place constitutes the 'place of removal of goods for section 4 of the Central Excise Act. Extended period of Limitation - HELD THAT:- There are substantial force in the appellant s contention that the issue was that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pient is eligible as abatement; this decision was subsequently relied upon by various co-ordinate branches of the Tribunal. 3. She further submits that while the Hon ble Supreme Court and Tribunals have held that the entire freight charges collected are eligible for abatement, in their case they are in a much better footing because they have paid most of the freight charges to the transporters and only on the balance amount the demand has been worked out In terms of the Ispat Industries case(supra) the appellant was not at all required to pay Excise Duty on such freight charges. Therefore, she submits that on merits, the appeal should be allowed. 4. She further submits that the Show Cause Notice has been issued on 29th March 2010 for the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies Ltd., judgment dated 07/10/2015, the assessee applied for refund which was rejected. Both assessee and revenue where in cross appeal before the Commissioner (appeals) which have been disposed by the common impugned order-in-appeal. Whereby, the appeal of the appellant-assessee was rejected and appeal of revenue was allowed. 32. Thereafter, the Appellate Commissioner vide Order-in-Appeal Nos 093-094-18-19 dated 28.09 2018, concurring with the findings of the Adjudicating Authority on merits held the freight is liable to be added to the transaction value for the purpose of levy and payment of Central Excise duty and the 'place of removal in this case is not Appellant's factory gate, but the buyer's premises Further Appellate C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were sold at the customers place only, and total money consideration for sale was not merely to supply the subject goods but was to supply the subject goods at the specific/designated location of the customers in acceptable condition/quality. Thus, the risk in transit was on the appellant-assessee. Further, payment terms provided that payment shall be made by the buyer only on acceptance of goods supplied at the purchasers site, that it appears that the sale or clearance of goods does not take place at the factory gate of the assessee but at the place of buyer on the delivery of goods. It was further observed that as per section 19 of the Sale of Goods Act, property in goods, in effect, passes to the buyer only at the buyer's premises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
