2018 (4) TMI 1089

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... : The appellant is located in Jammu; manufacturing excisable goods; enjoying area based exemption under Notification 56/2002-CE dated 14/11/2002. As per the scheme of the notification, the appellant is eligible for exemption equivalent to the duty payable on the value addition made on the final products cleared by them. There are two disputes in these bunch of appeals. The first one is with reference to eligibility of the appellant for refund of education/ higher education cess paid by them on such final products. The Revenue entertained a view that such cess is not refundable as no exemption is provided for the same. 2. On the issue relating to refund of education cess, both the sides agreed that the issue stands covered by the deci....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... excisable goods are sold after the clearance from the factory. We note in the present case the appellant is claiming that the goods were sold on FOR basis and as such the place of removal is the delivery point to the buyer. The freight element incurred by the appellant should form part of the assessable value in such FOR sale. In this connection, we note that the learned AR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CCE, Nagpur vs. Ispat Industries Ltd. - 2015 (324) E.L.T. 670 (S.C.). In the said decision the Apex court held "under no circumstances can the buyer's premises, therefore, be the place of removal for the purpose of Section 4 on the facts of the present case". The Apex court also distinguished their earlier decision in R....