Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether freight charges incurred for delivery of gas cylinders to the buyer's premises were excludible from the assessable value under the central excise valuation regime, and whether the demand confirmed by treating such freight as part of the assessable value was sustainable.
Analysis: The dispute turned on the place of removal and the point at which title in the goods passed. On the facts accepted in the judgment, the supply arrangement was on a net delivered price basis, but the controlling question was whether the sale was complete at the factory gate or only upon delivery and acceptance at the buyer's premises. The decision relied upon the distinction drawn in the Supreme Court's valuation jurisprudence between cases where the buyer's premises are not a place of removal and cases where the contract shows that ownership and risk continue with the seller until delivery. Applying the Supreme Court's later view that factual distinctions govern the inclusion of freight, the judgment treated the present case as falling within the line of authority where freight after clearance from the factory is not part of the assessable value.
Conclusion: Freight charges were not includible in the assessable value, and the demand sustained on that basis was unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are sold at the factory gate and freight represents post-removal expenditure, freight cannot be added to the assessable value merely because delivery is made to the buyer's premises.