Place of removal under excise valuation excludes buyer's premises, so post-removal freight is not part of assessable value.

For central excise valuation, freight charges for delivery of excisable goods from the factory to the buyer's premises are not includible in the assessable value. The analysis applies Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 5 of the Central Excise (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000, and follows the Supreme Court's interpretation that the buyer's premises cannot be treated as the place of removal. The place of removal is confined to the manufacturer's premises or another premises referable to the manufacturer from which the goods are sold, so transportation cost beyond that point is deductible. The demand was therefore not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether freight charges incurred for delivery of excisable goods from the factory to the buyer's premises are includible in the assessable value for central excise duty.

Analysis: The issue turned on the meaning of "place of removal" under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the effect of Rule 5 of the Central Excise (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. Following the Supreme Court's interpretation, the buyer's premises cannot be treated as the place of removal; that expression refers only to the manufacturer's premises or other premises referable to the manufacturer from where the goods are to be sold. Transportation cost from the place of removal to the place of delivery is therefore not part of the assessable value. The Department's reliance on contrary facts was found distinguishable.

Conclusion: Freight from the factory to the buyer's premises was not includible in the assessable value, and the demand could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: For central excise valuation, the buyer's premises cannot be the place of removal, and freight incurred beyond the manufacturer's place of removal is deductible from the assessable value.

---