TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 42
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lace. The Appellant stock transferred their final products to various depots from where they sold the goods to their ultimate customers. They determined the assessable value after deducting the cost of transportation and paid central excise duty accordingly. They filed Price Lists wherein they claimed deduction on account of cost of transportation on equalized basis. 2. A show Cause Notice dated 29.06.2001 was issued to the Appellant proposing to levy short paid excise duty on the ground that they had wrongfully claimed deduction on account of transportation cost incurred for delivery of goods. The Order-in-original dated 31.03.2009 was issued confirming the demand along with interest and penalty after recomputing the demand proposed in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e cost of transportation that is being claimed as deduction from the place of removal (branches) to dealers' destination. (iv) The annexure to the CA certificates provides the mechanism of computation of freight towards transportation charges, which clearly shows that the deduction has been claimed only on the transportation charges from the depot to dealer's destination. (v) With regard to the reliance placed on Circular dated 14.01.1997, they submitted that the department has wrongly interpreted the Circular. Para 5 of the circular has to be read with the fourth point of doubt in Circular dated 14.01.1996 which clarifies whether transport cost from factory to deport will form part of assessable value or not. In view of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ists with the department showing the deductions claimed and therefore, there cannot be any allegation of suppression. Therefore, the extended period cannot be invoked and the demand is substantially time barred. 6. The Ld. Departmental Representative reiterated the findings in the Order-in-Original 7. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 8. The issue involved in the present appeal is whether deduction on account of cost of transportation on equalized basis, is admissible or not. The Appellant has stock transferred their final products to various depots from where they sold the goods to their ultimate customers. After the amendment of section 4 and 'depot' has been added as a 'place of removel'' freight is includable in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 6/55/96-CX.1 Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue, New Delhi Subject : Determination of Assessable value - Equalisation of freight in cases of multi product, multi factory companies Sub-Section (2) of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 provides for exclusion of the cost of transportation from the place of removal to the place of delivery, from the value of excisable goods, where the price thereof for delivery at the place of removal is not known and the value is determined with reference to the price for delivery at a place other than the place of removal. 2. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. (1983 ELT 1896), referring to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e balance amount allocated to individual and valorem rated products on weight basis, sale-unit basis. 4. The matter has been further examined and it is felt that in multi-products and multilocation factories if equalised freight cannot be worked product wise, the principle laid down by the CEGAT in above said decision may be followed to work out equalised freight/averaged freight for the purposes of Section 4(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944. 5. For removal of any doubt, it is further clarified that the deduction of equalised freight/averged freight from the price prevalent at other place of removal as defined under clause (ii) to section 4(4)(b) would not arise on and after 28.9.96. The clarification given against the fourt....