2017 (12) TMI 233

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appellants did not discharge Central Excise duty on proper value of their finished goods and also availed certain ineligible credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against the appellant, by issue of SCN dated 20.02.2015. The various issues raised in SCN were adjudicated by the original authority resulting in the impugned order. Though many issues were raised in the notice and decided in the impugned order, the present appeal is restricted to only two issues. These are (a) Liability of the appellant to pay Central Excise duty on delivery charges of liquid gas and (b) Correctness of denial of Cenvat credit availed on ISD invoices. The ld. Counsel during the course of his submission stated that they are....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Since the buyer pays only for the quantity of gases delivered at their premise and the burden of transit loss and any other loss was on the appellant, it was held that the sale of goods takes place only at the buyer's premises. Examining the scope of the term "place of removal", the original authority held that place of removal is buyer's premises. A reference was made to Section 22 of Sale of Goods Act, 1930. The original authority concluded that the delivery charges are relatable to sales transaction and all elements of transaction value are to be included for excise duty purposes. The appellant's reliance on Apex Court decision in Escorts JCB Limited - 2003 (146) ELT 31 SC was referred to. However, he did not further discuss the said d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uld then possibly have reference to the buyer's premises. 17. It is clear, therefore, that as a matter of law with effect from the Amendment Act of 29.09.1996, the place of removal only has reference to places from which the manufacturer is to sell goods manufactured by him, and can, in no circumstances, have reference to the place of delivery which may, on facts, to be the buyer's premises. ............ 33. As has been seen in the present case all prices were "ex-works", like the facts in Escorts-JCB's case. Goods were cleared from the factory on payment of the appropriate sales tax by the assessee itself, thereby indicating that it had sold the goods manufactured by it at the factory gate. Sales were made against Letters of Credi....