Passing of property in specific goods governed the sale location; transit insurance did not prove continued ownership.

On a FOR Delhi contract for wires and cables, the place of sale was determined by the contract terms and appropriation of the identified goods to the contract when they were handed over to the transporter. That transfer attracted the rules on passing of property in specific goods, so the sale was treated as having taken place at Delhi rather than at the buyer's premises. The seller's arrangement of transit insurance did not, by itself, show continued ownership, because a seller may retain only an insurable interest after the sale has effectively passed. The Revenue's challenge failed and the assessee's cross-appeal succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the terms of the contract and transport documents, the sale of wires and cables took place at Delhi or at the buyer's premises, and whether the seller's taking of transit insurance showed that the seller continued to be the owner of the goods.

Analysis: The contract terms showed delivery on FOR Delhi basis and not FOR destination basis. The goods were identified and appropriated to the contract and handed over to the transporter, which attracted the legal position governing passing of property in specific goods. The mere fact that the seller arranged transit insurance did not, by itself, establish continued ownership, since a seller may retain an insurable interest even after sale has taken effect.

Conclusion: The sale was held to have taken place at Delhi and not at the buyer's premises. The Revenue's challenge failed, and the assessee's cross-appeal succeeded.

---