TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 156
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... same is taken up for disposal. 2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Ferro Silicon classifiable under chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant assessee was availing exemption/refund of the excise duty under Notification No.32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999. During the course of audit by the Central Excise Officers, it is noticed that the appellants sold their finished goods including the cost of transportation which resulted in over-valuation of the assessable value of finished goods during the period from 16.07.2003 to 31.03.2005, thus, contravening the provision of section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 5 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e laws, we find that it is now well-settled that the customers' place cannot be held to be a place of removal, as the goods are not removed from there but are delivered there. The issue has been analyzed in detail in the case of Aditya Birla Insulators Ltd. v. CCE, Kolkata-IV - 2008 (226) E.L.T. 377 (Tri.-Kolkata) - with reference to various terms of contract as well as the qualifier in the definition of 'place of removal' which reads as - "from where such goods are removed." The contention that the place of delivery is not the place of removal, and transportation and insurance charges cannot be included in the assessable value, also finds support in the following decisions :- (i) Escorts JCB Ltd. v. Commissioner - 2002 (146) E.L.T. 31 (S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Limited v. CCE, Kolkata-II - 2007 (217) E.L.T. 134 (Tri.-Kolkata). is entirely misplaced and not relevant to the case at hand. In our view, the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision of the Three Judges Bench in the case of CCE, Noida v. Accurate Meters Ltd. (cited supra) more appropriately covers the case at hand, in terms of which freight and insurance charges cannot be included in the assessable value. 8. Accordingly, we hold that the Respondents are not entitled to include freight and insurance charges in the assessable value and the duty on the impugned goods requires to be re-calculated accordingly. The Respondents would be entitled to the refund of duty paid on such re-calculated value in terms of the Notification No. 32/9....