2017 (8) TMI 99

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng the period 01.10.2005 to 31.03.2006. The proceedings were initiated by issuing the show cause notice on the ground that the appellant is recovering more amounts towards freight charges from the buyers then the amount actually incurred on this charges by them, therefore, they are liable to pay the duty on the differential amount. The show cause notice was adjudicated and the demand of duty along with interest confirmed and equivalent amount of penalty was also imposed on the appellant. Aggrieved from the said order, appellant is before us. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that in their own case for the period prior to the period in dispute and subsequent to the period in dispute, the matter came up before this Tribunal and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erein this Tribunal observed as under:- "10. The question for decision is liability of the appellant for central excise duty in respect of the amount received from the buyers towards freight which is in excess of actual freight incurred by them. The first point for determination is whether assessment of value in the present case is to be at the factory gate or not. The Original/Appellate Authority held that place of removal and delivery is not factory gate. The goods have actually been delivered at a place other than the place of removal. As the transportation of the goods to the buyer s premises is inbuilt in the purchase order and ex works price alone cannot be considered for valuation, the additional amount received by the appellant i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....if any over and above the actual cost of transportation was sought to be added to the value. It is very clear that Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules will come into play only when the provisions of Section 4(1)(a) are not fulfilled. In the present case the goods are sold by the assessee and the purchase order clearly indicates the transaction value ex-factory and the place of removal is ex-factory. The appellant undertaking the transport duties will not make the place of removal other than ex-factory. We find that the purchase orders indicated the price which fulfills the conditions of transaction value ex-factory. In these circumstances, recourse to the provisions of Valuation Rules is not warranted. There is no allegation to the effect that th....