2018 (9) TMI 562

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erence to eligibility of the appellant for exemption/refund of education/higher education cess paid on the goods manufactured and cleared by the appellant by availing area based exemption under Notification 56/2002-CE dated 14/11/2002. We note that both the sides agreed that the issue stands settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SRD Nutrients Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Guwahati- 2017 -TIOL- 416- SC-CX. As such, following the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court who held that the assessee is eligible for such refund which is paid alongwith the excise duty once the excise duty itself was exempted. As such, all the appeals which were on this dispute are decided following the ratio of the Apex court, stated above. 3. The second issue is with referen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tries 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 Rooffit Industries 2015 (319) E.L.T. 221 (S.C.). The Apex Court observed as below :- "16. It will thus be seen that where the price at which goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee is different for different places of removal, then each such price shall be deemed to be the normal value thereof. Sub-clause (b)(iii) is very important and makes it clear that a depot, the premises of a consignment agent, or any other place or premises from where th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lace of removal as buyers premises. Following the ratio of the Apex court in Ispat Industries Ltd. (supra), we hold that there is no justification for the appellant to consider the assessable value with inclusion of freight element after the goods were sold/removed from the factory. As such, the question of paying duty on such value addition to be covered by the exemption under Notification 56/2002-CE does not arise. Accordingly, we hold the claim of the appellant in these appeals are not sustainable. 6. The third issue is with reference to eligibility in terms of Notification No. 19/2008-CE dated 27.03.2008 and 34/2008-CE dated 10.06.2008, whether the appellants are entitled to claim refund/self-credit as restricted by these notificatio....