2023 (1) TMI 448

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... pointed out that they are engaged in manufacture of chemicals and they were supplying their finished goods on payment of central excise duty at the door steps of the buyers. The appellants were recovering freight charges on actual basis from buyers. The appellants were discharging excise duty without including in the assessable value the freight amount collected by them on actual basis. Learned counsel pointed out that the original adjudicating authority as well as first appellate authority both held that the factory gate is the place of removal in their case. It was argued that having held factory gate as place of removal, it was open to the authorities to include the freight charges in the assessable value of the excisable goods. He reli....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....moval upto the place of delivery of such excisable goods provided the cost of transportation is charged to the buyer in addition to the price for the goods and shown separately in the invoice for such excisable goods." The said Rule 5 is very clear as per which if the goods are sold for delivery at the time and place of removal the actual cost of transportation from place of removal up to the place of delivery shall be excluded but if the goods are sold for delivery at a place other than the place of removal then the cost of transportation will be included in the transaction value. The term 'place of removal' is clearly defined as above under Section 4(3)(c) of Central Excise Act. 1944 in which buyer's premises is nowhe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ioner (Appeals) has come to the conclusion that Rule 5 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 prescribes that if the goods are sold for delivery at a place other than place of removal then the cost of transportation will be included in the transaction value. It is noticed that the said observation of the Commissioner is opposite to the prescription in Rule which states that "the goods are sold for delivery at a place other than the place of removal then the charge of excisable goods shall be deemed to be the transaction value excluding actual cost of transportation from the place of removal upto the place of delivery of such excisable goods." We find that the impugned order does not interpret Rule 5 correctly. In the above ....