2018 (3) TMI 1803

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssee 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/assessee 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 decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in SRD Nutrients Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Guwahati - 2017-TIOL-416-SC-CX = 2017 (355) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.), As such, following the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assessee 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/assessee 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 v. 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 Rooffit Industries - 2015 (319) E.L.T. 221 (S.C.). The Apex Court observed as below :- "....