2001 (4) TMI 765

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... came across agreements between the assessee and various Oil Companies viz. M/s. IOC, M/s. BPCC Ltd. and HPC for supply of LPG cylinders with valves and regulators. According to the agreement the goods were to be despatched preferably by rail "freight prepaid". The Oil Companies had the right to require the assessee to despatch the goods by road and in such cases, Oil Companies were to pay the actual freight charges incurred by the assessees. Insurance policies showed that the goods sold were insured by the assessees till the goods reached the buyers premises so the value of the goods at the place of sale was held to be the basis for assessment to duty under the Central Excise Act. Freight and insurance charges were held to be includible in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rned DR. 3. We find that in identical circumstances, the Tribunal has upheld the duty demand in the case of Escorts JCB Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi reported in 2000 (118) E.L.T. 650, holding as under : 4. Section 4(4)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 defines "place of removal". Sub-clause (iii) of Section 4(b) is the one with which we are concerned in this appeal. It states "place of removal" means - "a depot, premises of a consignment agent or any other place or premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory." Place where excisable goods are sold can be a place of removal. A place where the goods are sold can be place where the property in the good....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der in imposing duty amounting to Rs. 29,65,532 under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. Following the ratio of the above order which had the approval of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Prabhat Zarda Factory reported in [2000 (119) E.L.T. 191 (Tri.-LB) = 2000 (38) RLT 637] and which is on all fours with the facts of the present appeals, we hold that the duty demand is sustainable. 4. The next plea of assessees is that the demand is partly barred by limitation as the assessees did not conceal any material facts in order to evade payment of duty. However, we see no force in this submission. The appellants have not been able to establish that they had dis....