TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (10) TMI 378
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....SSB) at various sites as specified by the GWSSB. On examination of the records of the assesse, Revenue noticed that the respondents were not billing the goods at the price agreed to between them and GWSSB but were billing for a lower price and paying excise duty on such value and thereafter adding an amount in the invoices to make it equal to contract price. The period of dispute is 1.7.2000 to 31.3.2001. 2. The Revenue was of the view that the contract was for supply at the project sites and therefore, the place of removal of goods should be considered as project site and therefore, as per provisions of section 4 of Central Excise Act, freight upto each place of removal had to be added in the assessable value and duty was to be paid on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeals), the Revenue has filed this appeal on the following grounds: i) That Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly relied upon the Case law of M/s Excorts JCB Ltd which is not applicable to the facts of this case. In the relied upon case law, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that 'the place of removal' would be factory premises, when insurance policy is in the name of assesse and the ownership of goods is of no relevance in so far as transit insurance of goods is concerned. However, in this case, the issue is as to where the sale is taking place, when semi-finished goods are transferred to the buyer's premises and finishing is done at the buyer's premises and then, as per contract, finished goods are delivered to the buyer. (ii) That....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... buyers to deliver the goods at their project site and the buyers had agreed to reimburse the cost of freight and insurance. They submit that the fact that they were arranging transport and insurance and getting the amount reimbursed, cannot be a reason to consider the project site as the place of removal. In the matter of epoxy coating and gunnitting, they submitted that these activities do not amount to manufacture and these activities were done outside the factory and therefore, cannot form part of assessable value as clarified by the Board vide Circular No. 19/09/200 CX IV dated 3.1.2001. They rely on the decision of Sidharth Pipes Ltd reported in 2000 (150) ELT 32 SC) and JG Glass reported in 1998 (97) ELT 5 (SC). They argue that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that clause are (i) a depot (ii) premises of a consignment agent or (iii) any other place of removal. Naturally, the expression used in third category has to mean a place of the same nature as a depot or premises of a consignment. Further clause (iii) refers to a place from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory. 8. In the instant case, the Revenue has not made out any case that at the time of removal from the factory, the clearance is not against sale. What is to be noted is that the expression used is 'place or premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold'. This cannot be interpreted to mean a place or premises where the excisable goods are delivered to the buyers. 9. The fact that ....