TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (6) TMI 302
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uthority. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under:- 3. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of crown corks, p.p. caps, vacu seals, tear off seals etc. and supplying the goods to their buyers at their premises as per the terms and conditions of the purchase orders placed and were discharging the excise duty on these excisable goods at factory gate, which was declared as the 'place of removal'. The allegations of the appellant is that the respondents were having the custody of the goods with them during the transit of the goods and that the transporter is not found taking delivery of the goods on behalf of the customers. The adjudicating authority observed that the insurance policy and the purchase orders showed that the suppl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fies that in view of the change in definition of place of removal, sale price at the place of removal such as depot etc. has to be taken as normal sale price for determination of assessable value. A sale price at any place of removal other than factory gate has to take into account all the expenses incurred towards transport including freight, insurance, etc. from factory gate to such place of removal and other expenses incurred in maintaining and running the said place of removal and thus all these expenses will form part of the sale price for determination of assessable value. After amendment of Section 4, depots etc. have been declared as "place of removal" and as such sale price prevailing at such depots, etc. Which will include tran....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... v. Prabhat Zarda Factory Ltd. - 2000 (119) E.L.T. 191 (Tri.-L.B.) (c) Associated Strips Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi - 2002 (143) E.L.T. 131 (Tri.-Del.) (d) Frexton Cables (India) v. CCE, Delhi - 2002 (142) E.L.T. 694 (Tri.-Del.) (e) Escorts JBC Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi - 2002 (146) E.L.T. 31 (S.C.) (f) Prabhat Zarda Factory Ltd. v. CCE. - 2002 (146) E.L.T. 497 (S.C.) 10. Shri R. Vishwanathan drew our attention to the Order-in-Original No. 14/2005 dated 16-5-2005 passed by the CCE, Mumbai-II in the respondent's own case, wherein the adjudicating authority observed that: "it is a matter of record that there was considerable confusion within the judicial fora itself regarding the place of removal in such cases. The Tribunal had in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the goods during transit would not be the sole consideration to decide the ownership or the point of sale of the goods. As on date, the air of uncertainty on the issue has lifted and there is clarity of concept, in these areas. Taking all these aspects into consideration, I now proceed to formulate my views on the actual "place of removal". M/s. L & T in the present case, manufacture goods as per their buyer's specifications. 'They then insure the goods to be transported and pay the freight on them on the request of their buyers and as per the terms of their contract. In my view, once the goods are identified and approved by their buyer's representative, they are appropriated to the contract. The provisions of Section 23 and Section....