AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1018
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the finished goods was the premises of their customers. The appellant had recovered the cost of transportation from the buyers and had taken insurance under 'open marine policy' to cover the loss in transit and safe delivery of goods up to the customer's place. The department's contention is that the goods were sold by appellant in such case at the premise of their buyers and hence the premises of such buyers had to be treated as place of removal, as per the definition of place of removal given in Section 4(3)(c) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Accordingly, it was further contended that the appellant had recovered the cost of transportation for such deliveries from their buyers but had not included the said transportation cost in the transac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... transit insurance is concerned. The mere fact that assessee agreeing for giving some additional facility to the customers to arrange the transportation is not a fact for the purpose of adding the transportation charges to the assessable value. He submits that under the law, place of delivery can only be the premises of manufacturer i.e. factory, depot or authorized consignment agent and cannot be the premises of buyer and terms 'any other premises' refers to premises of manufacturer only in Section 4. In support of this submission, he placed reliance on the following decisions :- (a) Escorts JCB Limited vs. CCE, Delhi - 2002 (146) ELT 31 (SC) (b) Solaris Chemtech Limited vs. CCE, Mangalore - 2004 (178) ELT 966 (Tri. Bang.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. We find that there is no dispute as regards the facts of the present case according to which the appellant have charged transportation charges in the invoices showing separately from their customers. The goods were cleared for sale from the factory premises of the appellant. The insurance of the goods was covered by the appellant up to the place of delivery of the goods. As per the impugned order, the entire emphasis was given that the place of removal is the place of delivery, which is the premises of the buyer of the goods therefore, all the expenses including the in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emises of the assessee only and there cannot be any other premises belonging to other then the assessee which can be permitted as place of removal. Therefore, when the facts were clear that goods cleared from the factory for sale, even though on FOR basis, the place of buyer cannot be the place of removal in such case the factory from where the goods were cleared for sale is the place of removal. Accordingly, the freight charges is not includable in the assessable value in terms of Rule 5 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable goods) Rules, 2000. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ispat Industries Limited (Supra) dealt with the same legal issue in the same set of facts and passed the following order:- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... number of the transit Insurance Policy were mentioned. Above all, excise invoices were prepared at the time of the goods leaving the factory in the name and address of the customers of the respondent. When the goods were handed over to the transporter, the respondent had no right to the disposal of the goods nor did it reserve such rights inasmuch as title had already passed to its customer. On facts, therefore, it is clear that Roofit's judgment is wholly distinguishable. Similarly in Commissioner Central Excise, Mumbai-III v. M/s. EMCO Ltd., this Court re-stated its decision in the Roofit Industries' case but remanded the case to the Tribunal to determine whether on facts the factory gate of the assessee was the place of removal of excis....