Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal excludes freight charges from excise duty calculation, rules in favor of appellants</h1> <h3>Sri Chakra Cement Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Tax Visakhapatnam - GST</h3> The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the order that demanded additional central excise duty based on the inclusion of freight ... Demand of differential duty - place of removal - inclusion of freight charges in the assessable value for payment of central excise duty - It was observed by the Department that the sale of cement to few of the customers was on FOR basis that too in terms of an agreement/ the purchase order - HELD THAT:- Learned DR has laid emphasis upon clause 3 of the definition of place of removal as was relevant for the period in question because said clause includes the place from where the goods are to be sold in the definition of ‘place of removal’, the buyer’s place becomes the place of removal where sale gets concluded at buyer’s place. The said submission is not acceptable in the light of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR VERSUS M/S ISPAT INDUSTRIES LTD. [2015 (10) TMI 613 - SUPREME COURT] only wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the words used in the provision are “goods are to be sold”. The contention of the Revenue would be correct if and only if the words in the provision would have been “goods have been sold”. Resultantly, the place of removal refers only to the place from where goods are to be sold by the manufacturer and thus it has no reference to the place of delivery which may be either the buyers premises or the premises as the buyer may direct the manufacturer to send his goods. The earlier decision in the case of ESCORTS JCB LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-II [2002 (10) TMI 96 - SUPREME COURT] was held to have similar facts as were there in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. The Hon’ble Court also observed that in the case of COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD VERSUS M/S ROOFIT INDUSTRIES LTD. [2015 (4) TMI 857 - SUPREME COURT] the Hon’ble Supreme Court had distinguished Escort’s JCB’s case. But based on the facts of that case (Roofit’s), it was held that the sale of goods in terms of Section 19 of sale of goods Act did not take place at the factory gate of assessee. The Court also observed that the Court’s attention was not drawn to Section 4 of Excise Act as originally enacted and as amended to demonstrate that the buyer’s premises cannot, in law, be “a place of removal” under the said section. The value of freight charged by the appellant for delivering the cement to their buyers’ premises is not to be included while assessing the value for the purpose of payment of central excise duty - Appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Inclusion of freight charges in the assessable value for payment of central excise duty.2. Determination of the 'place of removal' under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Inclusion of Freight Charges in the Assessable Value:The appeal challenges the Order-in-Appeal No. 024-2022-23 dated 17.06.2022, which upheld the demand for differential duty based on the inclusion of freight charges in the assessable value for central excise duty. The appellants, manufacturers of cements and clinkers, paid excise duty excluding the freight charges incurred for delivering goods to some consumers' premises. The Department observed that the sale of cement to certain customers was on an F.O.R. (Free on Rail/Road) basis, as per agreements or purchase orders, concluding that the buyer's premises were the place of removal. Consequently, a show cause notice dated 01.05.2018 was issued, proposing an additional demand of Rs. 42,44,685/- for the non-inclusion of freight charges in the assessable value for the period from April 2016 to June 2017. This demand was initially confirmed by the Original Authority and subsequently upheld in the order under challenge.2. Determination of the 'Place of Removal':The core issue is whether excise duty should be paid on freight charges incurred for transporting goods from the factory gate to the buyer's premises, treating the buyer's premises as the place of removal. The appellant's counsel argued that their case is covered by the Tribunal's decision in My Home Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Visakhapatnam, and the Supreme Court's decision in CC and CCE Nagpur vs. Ispat Industries [2015 (324) ELT 670 (SC)]. The Department's representative relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CCE Aurangabad vs. Roofit Industries Ltd. [2015 (319) ELT 221 (SC)].The Tribunal observed that the issue is identical to that in Ispat Industries Ltd., where the Supreme Court examined Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. The Court held that the cost of transportation from the factory gate to the place of delivery should be excluded from the assessable value, emphasizing that the 'place of removal' refers to the manufacturer's premises and not the buyer's premises. The amendment to Section 4 in 1996 and the introduction of 'transaction value' in 2000 further clarified that freight or transportation expenses should not be included in calculating excise duty.The Tribunal noted that Rule 5 and Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000, as amended in 2003, confirmed that transportation costs from the place of removal to the place of delivery are to be excluded from the assessable value. The Department's reliance on the definition of 'place of removal' was rejected, as the Supreme Court in Ispat Industries Ltd. clarified that the buyer's premises cannot be considered the place of removal.The Tribunal also referred to its previous decision in My Home Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Visakhapatnam, which relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Ispat Industries Ltd. and held that the place of removal is the manufacturer's premises, not the buyer's. The Tribunal reiterated that the cost of transportation from the place of removal to the place of delivery should be excluded from the assessable value.In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the value of freight charges for delivering cement to the buyer's premises should not be included in the assessable value for central excise duty. The differential duty confirmed by the order under challenge was deemed incorrect, and the appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order.(Order pronounced in the open court on 01.02.2023)

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found