2017 (3) TMI 710

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....harma, AR for the respondent Per: Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of hot rolled steel strips. During the course of audit, it was found that during the period 1.4.2000 to 30.6.2000, the appellant collected an amount of Rs. 9,59,874/- as freight from the consignment agents on be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appellant is before us. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that during the impugned period, place of removal was the factory of the appellant and no requirement of freight to be included in the assessable value as the appellant cleared the goods through consignment agent from their factory. He further submits that the said issue has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ds. As a matter of law therefore, the Commissioner's order and Revenue's argument based on that order that freight charges must be included as the sale in the present facts took place at the buyer's premises is incorrect. Further, for the period 1-7-2000 to 31-3-2003 there will be no extended place of removal, the factory premises or the warehouse (in the circumstances mentioned in the Section), a....