TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 1047
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act 1944 (in short "the Act") to deposit an amount of Rs.4 crore. This predeposit was directed out of an amount of Rs.8.02 crore of excise duty along with interest thereon and equivalent penalty as confirmed and imposed by order dated 26 March 2013 of the Adjudicating Authority. It is only on the above predeposit of Rs.4 Crore that the appellant's appeal would be heard by the Tribunal on merits. 3 The basic issue in controversy before the Tribunal is, whether freight charges which are shown separately in the invoices and reimbursed by the Customer are to be included in the assessable value of the goods or not? 4 The appellant during the period relevant to these proceedings i.e. February 2007 to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded in the assessable value of the goods, and (iii) Board Circular No.354/81/2000 TRU dated 30 June 2000 to conclude that freight charges is to be included in the assessable value of goods. In view of the above, the Tribunal held that even in cases of class (c) category of sales above, freight has to be added to the value of goods to arrive at the assessable value. 7 The appellant's grievance with regard to the impugned order in respect of good at (c) above is that on facts in this case the sale takes place at the factory gate. The freight which is charged to their customers is separately shown over and above the sale price in the invoice. The charging of freight is a separate contact between its customer and itself. Moreover, in this ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t (b) above, that the sale takes place at customer's premises and goods could be said to have been removed at the customer's premises. This is also evident from the fact that the lorry receipt in case of sale of goods at (b) above the petitioner is shown as the consignee while in case of class (c) sale of goods the customer is shown as consignee evidencing that the goods are sold at the appellant's factory gate where the risk in goods passes to the customer. 10 We have considered the submissions. We find that the Tribunal in the impugned order has relied upon a Circular of the Board dated 30 June 2000, which interalia provides as under: "...... However, exclusion of cost of transportation is allowed only if the assessee has shown them sep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessable value of the goods sold by the assessee to its customers. 13 Further, the impugned order holds that as the freight is included in the value of goods for payment of VAT, it must be included also for arriving at the value of the goods for purposes of the Act is not appropriate. Both the levies are different and the assessable value for purpose of excise must be only in terms of the Act alone and not on the basis of VAT Act. Moreover, the fact that in case of goods falling in category (b) above, the petitioner pay excise duty on freight does not make it necessary that the same would apply even in case of goods falling under category (c) above. The regime under the Act is transaction value and each transaction is to be separately as....