TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal overturns duty demand, citing manufacturer's factory as place of removal</h1> <h3>Roofit Industries Ltd. Versus CC and CE</h3> Roofit Industries Ltd. Versus CC and CE - TMI Issues:Duty demand based on inclusion of freight and insurance charges in assessable value of goods. Applicability of place of removal in determining assessable value. Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.The judgment addressed the duty demand of &8377; 36,16,318/-, which was confirmed by the adjudicating authority by including freight and insurance charges in the assessable value of RCC and PSC pipes manufactured and cleared by the appellants. The authority argued that since the place of removal of finished goods was the buyer's premises and not the factory gate, the amounts needed to be included in the assessable value. Additionally, a penalty equal to the duty amount was imposed on the appellant under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.Upon considering both sides, the Tribunal found that the issue in dispute had already been settled in favor of the assessee by a Supreme Court decision in the case of Escorts JCB Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi. The Supreme Court held that the factory premises of the manufacturer should be considered the place of removal, as the transaction of sale, payment of price, and delivery of goods to the carrier all took place at the factory premises. Even though the transportation of goods and transit insurance was arranged by the seller, the Supreme Court emphasized that the factory premises should be deemed the place of removal. This decision overturned the Tribunal's order relied upon by the Commissioner, which held that insurance and freight charges should be included in the assessable value.Based on the Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal concluded that the duty demand and penalty were not sustainable. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants. The judgment emphasized the importance of the place of removal in determining the assessable value of goods for excise duty purposes, aligning with the Supreme Court's interpretation in the cited case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
