<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2023 (3) TMI 735 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435349</link>
    <description>Freight charged separately in invoices for excisable goods cleared from the factory is not includible in assessable value where delivery is made at the buyer&#039;s premises. The place of removal under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act remains the factory or other statutory place of removal, and the buyer&#039;s premises cannot be treated as the place of removal merely because the seller undertakes delivery there. Transportation cost incurred beyond the place of removal is therefore excludible from valuation, and the duty demand on freight was not sustainable. The Tribunal also noted that the issue was covered by binding precedent and earlier co-ordinate bench decisions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Mar 2023 08:28:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=707964" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (3) TMI 735 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435349</link>
      <description>Freight charged separately in invoices for excisable goods cleared from the factory is not includible in assessable value where delivery is made at the buyer&#039;s premises. The place of removal under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act remains the factory or other statutory place of removal, and the buyer&#039;s premises cannot be treated as the place of removal merely because the seller undertakes delivery there. Transportation cost incurred beyond the place of removal is therefore excludible from valuation, and the duty demand on freight was not sustainable. The Tribunal also noted that the issue was covered by binding precedent and earlier co-ordinate bench decisions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435349</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>