2024 (6) TMI 616

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....omer's place. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the business of manufacturing roll products of aluminium in different forms such as corrugated or plain sheets of various thicknesses. For sale of the manufactured goods, the Appellant entered into two types of agreements with the customers. Under both the agreements, the goods were sold at the factory gate. In one agreement, the buyers took delivery of such goods at the place of removal i.e., factory gate and in the other one, the Appellant arranged transportation of goods from place of removal i.e., to the buyer's premises. For the goods cleared from the factory gate, there is no dispute, but where the transport arranged for transportation of goods, the Appella....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppellant contested the show-cause notice. But the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand against the appellant alleging under-valuation and the said order was confirmed by the ld.Commissioner (Appeals). 2.4 Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before us. 3. The ld.Counsel for the appellant submits that the issue is no longer res integra as the freight towards transportation from the place of removal till the customer's premises is not includible as held by this Tribunal in the appellant's own case as reported in 2023 (11) TMI 1253- CESTAT-Kolkata. Therefore, he prayed that the impugned order is to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the ld. A.R. for the Revenue reiterated the impugned order. 5. Heard both the par....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt clause contained in the procurement order, payment was only to be made after receipt of goods at the premises of the buyer. On facts, therefore, it was held that the sale of goods did not take place at the factory gate of the assessee. Also, this Court's attention was not drawn to Section 4 as originally enacted and as amended to demonstrate that the buyer's premises cannot, in law, be "a place of removal" under the said Section. 33. As has been seen in the present case all prices were "ex-works", like the facts in Escorts JCB's case. Goods were cleared from the factory on payment of the appropriate sales tax by the assessee itself, thereby indicating that it had sold the goods manufactured by it at the factory gate. Sales were ....