2024 (4) TMI 62

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in the transaction value has been upheld. 1.1 Brief facts of the case are that during the course of audit it was noticed that appellant was clearing their goods on FOR basis and they were collecting transportation charges from their buyers and were showing the same separately in their sales invoices. However they have not included the transportation charges/ freight charges in their assessable value during the period from 2010-11 to December 2013. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant and subsequently demand was confirmed by the Original Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original dated 31.05.2016. The appeal thereof has been dismissed by Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 05.08.2016. Bein....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... before various Tribunal including Supreme Court. The issue involved the interpretation of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rules for determination of price of Excisable Goods, 2000, which has been a subject matter of litigations and accordingly the suppression of fact by invoking the extended period is not justifiable. Show cause notice dated 21.01.2016 issued proposing the demand of differential excise duty on freight amount for the period from January 2011 to December 2013, is patently time barred. 3. Shri P Ganesan Ld. Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on calculated in accordance with generally accepted principles of costing. Explanation 2. - For removal of doubts, it is clarified that the cost of transportation from the factory to the place of removal, where the factory is not the place of removal, shall not be excluded for the purposes of determining the value of the excisable goods". From the above rule it can be seen that when goods are sold for delivery at a place other than place of removal, transaction value of excisable goods shall not include actual cost of transportation from the place of removal up to the place of delivery of such excisable goods. As per the rule reproduced above, in order to allow the deduction of the cost of transportation following criterion shou....