TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1166
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... res-integra as in the facts when the sale is ex-factory or FOR sale the freight charges is not includible in the assessable value of the excisable goods. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- 1. EIMCO Elecon India Ltd v. C.C.E. & C. Anand 2024 (4) TMI 62 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD 2. Panama Petrochem Ltd. v. C.C.E, Daman 2024 (4) TMI 325 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD 3. Sayaji Senthness Ltd. v. C.C.E., Ahmedabad 2024 (5) TMI 194 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD 4. Gujarat Fluorochemicals Limited v. C.C.E., Vadodara 2024 (1) TMI 883 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD 5. Messrs Mira Industries v. CCE 2023 (4) TMI 655-CESTAT AHMEDABAD 6. CCE v. Ispat Industries Ltd. 2015 (324) ELT 670 (S.C.) 7. Escorts JCB Ltd. v. CCE 2002 (146) ELT 31 (S.C.) 8. CCE, Mumbai III v. EMCO Ltd. 2015 (322) ELT 394 (S.C.) 9. CCE v. Accurate Meters Ltd. 2009 (235) ELT 581 (S.C.) 10. Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. v. CCE 1997 (94) ELT 13 (S.C.) 11. Sterlite Optical Technologies Ltd. v. CCE Aurangabad 2015 (329) ELT 341 (Tri. - Mumbai) 12. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. CCE 2017 (349) ELT 694 (Guj.) 13. CCE v. ZYG Pharma Pvt. Ltd 2017 (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rticle chargeable with duty from the factory or any other premises of manufacture or production for delivery at the place of manufacture or production, or if a wholesale market does not exist for such article at such place, at the nearest place where such market exists, or (b) where such price is not ascertainable, the price at which an article of the like kind and quality is sold or is capable of being sold by the manufacturer or producer, or his agent, at the time of the removal of the article chargeable with duty from such factory or other premises for delivery at the place of manufacture or production, or if such article is not sold or is not capable of being sold at such place, at any other place nearest thereto. Explanation. - In determining the price of any article under this section, no abatement or deduction shall be allowed except in respect of trade discount and the amount of duty payable at the time of the removal of the article chargeable with duty from the factory or other "premises aforesaid." 11. It will be seen that the value of an article chargeable with excise duty is deemed to be the wholesale cash price for which an article of the lik....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le trade except to or through a related person, the normal price of the goods sold by the assessee to or through such related person shall be deemed to be the price at which they are ordinarily sold by the related person in the course of wholesale trade at the time of removal, to dealers (not being related persons) or where such goods are not sold to such dealers, to dealers (being related persons), who sell such goods in retail; (b) Where the normal price of such goods is not ascertainable for the reason, that such goods are not sold or for any other reason, the nearest ascertainable equivalent thereof determined in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) Where, in relation to any excisable goods the price thereof for delivery at the place of removal is not known and the value thereof is determined with reference to the price for delivery at a place other than the place of removal, the cost of transportation from the place of removal to the place of delivery shall be excluded from such price. (3) The provisions of this section shall not apply in respect of any excisable goods for which a tariff value has been fixed under sub-section (2) of section 3. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be dealt with later." [at para 27] The Court further went on to say : "Where the sale in the course of wholesale trade is effected by the assessee through its sales organisation at a place or places outside the factory gate, the expenses incurred by the assessee upto the date of delivery under the aforesaid heads cannot, on the same grounds, be deducted. But the assessee will be entitled to a deduction on account of the cost of transportation of the excisable article from the factory gate to the place or places where it is sold. The cost of transportation will include the cost of insurance on the freight for transportation of the goods from the factory gate to the place or places of delivery." [at para 50] 14. This view of the law was reiterated in Government of India v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd., (1995) 4 SCC 349 = 1995 (77) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.). Interestingly, in paragraph 39 of the judgment, cost of transportation from the factory gate to the place of removal not forming part of excise duty was conceded by the revenue. 15. Section 4 as substituted by the 1973 Amendment Act suffered a further amendment in 1996. The amendments carried out were to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mises. 17. It is clear, therefore, that as a matter of law with effect from the Amendment Act of 28-9-1996, the place of removal only has reference to places from which the manufacturer is to sell goods manufactured by him, and can, in no circumstances, have reference to the place of delivery which may, on facts, be the buyer's premises. 18. By an Amendment Act which came into effect on 1-7-2000, Section 4 was substituted yet again as follows :- "Section 4. Valuation of excisable goods for purposes of charging of duty of excise. - (1) Where under this Act, the duty of excise is chargeable on any excisable goods with reference to their value, then, on each removal of the goods, such value shall - (a) In a case where the goods are sold by the assessee, for delivery at the time and place of the removal, the assessee and the buyer of the goods are not related and the price is the sole consideration for the sale, by the transaction value; (b) In any other case, including the case where the goods are not sold, be the value determined in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) The provisions of this section shall not apply in respect of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. Interestingly, it will be noticed that under Section 4(3)(c), the place of removal is defined as it had been defined in the substituted Section 4 (by the 1973 Amendment) before its further amendment in 1996. What is conspicuous by its absence in the present Section is Section 4(2) and sub-section (b)(iii) in the previous Section 4 (after its amendment in 1996). It is clear therefore, that for the second period in question in the present case, namely, 1-7-2000 to 31-3-2003, the depot, premises of a consignment agent or any other place from which excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory are no longer places of removal. Also, the definition of "transaction value" makes it clear that freight or transportation expenses are not included in calculating the excise duty payable. 20. It is necessary also to refer to Rules 5 and 7 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 which came into force on the same date as the amendment to Section 4, i.e., 1-7-2000. These Rules read as under :- "Rule 5. Where any excisable goods are sold in the circumstances specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "Rule 5. Where any excisable goods are sold in the circumstances specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Act except the circumstances in which the excisable goods are sold for delivery at a place other than the place of removal, then the value of such excisable goods shall be deemed to be the transaction value, excluding the cost of transportation from the place of removal upto the place of delivery of such excisable goods. Explanation 1. - "Cost of transportation" includes - (i) the actual cost of transportation; and (ii) in case where freight is averaged, the cost of transportation 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." 23. It is clear, therefore, that on and after 14-5-2003, the position as it obtained from 28-9-1996 to 1-7-2000 has now been reinstated. Rule 5 as substituted in 2003 also confirms the position t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elating to the transaction of sale of the goods and the other arranging for the transit insurance for the buyer and charging the amount expended for the purpose from him separately." [at para 8] " From the above passage it is clear that ownership in the property may not have any relevance insofar as insurance of goods sold during transit is concerned. It would therefore not be lawful to draw an inference of retention of ownership in the property sold by the seller merely by reason of the fact that the seller had insured such goods during transit to the buyer. It is not necessary that insurance of the goods and the ownership of the property insured must always go together. It may be depending upon various facts and circumstances of a particular transaction and terms and conditions of sale. A reference has also been made to Colinvauz's Law of Insurance, 6th Edn. by Robert Merkin to indicate that there may be insurance to cover the interest of others, that is to say, not necessarily the person insuring the interest must be the owner of the property." [at para 10] 26. This Court then went on to follow Bombay Tyre International's case and ultimately held :- "I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was extended. According to the Tribunal the result was that only the transport charges from the place of removal to the place of delivery were to be excluded from the value. We have heard the parties at length. In our view, Section 4 has to be read as a whole. Under Section 4(1)(a), the normal price is the price at which goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee to a buyer in the course of wholesale trade for delivery at the time and place of removal, where the buyer is not a related person and price is the sole consideration for sale. Therefore, the normal price is the price at the "time of delivery" and "at the place of removal". Before the amendment, the place of removal was only the factory or any other place or premises where the excisable goods were produced or manufactured or a warehouse or any other place or premises where any excisable goods have been permitted to be deposited without payment of duty. Thus, the price would be the price at that place. By the amendment proviso (ia) to Section 4(1)(a) has been added. Under Section 4(1)(a)(ia) where the price of the goods is different for different places of removal, each such price was deemed to be the normal price o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not be so includible as per the said judgment." This judgment, therefore, also holds that even in a depot sale, freight and insurance for delivery to customers from the depot to their premises cannot possibly be included, and followed the Escorts JCB case supra. 31. With this we come to two recent judgments of this Court. In CCE & Customs v. Roofit Industries Ltd., 2015 (319) E.L.T. 221 (S.C.), this Court, after distinguishing the Escorts JCB's case, stated :- "The principle of law, thus, is crystal clear. It is to be seen as to whether as to at what point of time sale is effected, namely, whether it is on factory gate or at a later point of time, i.e., when the delivery of the goods is effected to the buyer at his premises. This aspect is to be seen in the light of the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act by applying the same to the facts of each case to determine as to when the ownership in the goods is transferred from the seller to the buyer. The charges which are to be added have put up to the stage of the transfer of that ownership inasmuch as once the ownership in goods stands transferred to the buyer, any expenditure incurred thereafter has to be o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ections 20 to 24 are rules for ascertaining the intention of the parties as to the time at which the property in the goods is to pass to the buyer." These are clear finding of facts on the aforesaid lines recorded by the Adjudicating Authority. However, CESTAT did not take into consideration all these aspects and allowed the appeal of the assessee by merely referring to the judgment in Escorts JCB Ltd. [(2003) 1 SCC 281 : (2002) 146 E.L.T. 31] Obviously the exact principle laid down in the judgment has not been appreciated by CESTAT." [at paras 12-15] 32. It will be seen that this is a decision distinguishing the Escorts JCB's case on facts. It was found that goods were to be delivered only at the place of the buyer and the price of the goods was inclusive of transportation charges. As transit damage on the assessee's account would imply that till the goods reached their destination, ownership in the goods remained with the supplier, namely, the assessee, freight charges would have to be added as a component of excise duty. Further, as per the terms of the payment clause contained in the procurement order, payment was only to be made after receipt of goods at the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessable value of such excisable goods. 4.1 Having considered the rival contention we find that freight have been charged separately and received separately. We also take notice that the buyers of the goods-Western Coalfields Ltd., Nagpur and M/s Bharart Coking Coal Ltd. (A Subsidiary of Coal India Ltd.) have issued purchase order specifying the price for the goods separately and also specifying the transportation cost for the supply of goods. Accordingly, appellant have supplied the goods and raised invoices for the price of goods and the transportation. Thus, it amounts to showing the cost of transport separately in the invoices. 4.2 The relevant Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules is reproduced below:- "Rule 5. Where any excisable goods are sold in the circumstances specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Act except the circumstances in which the excisable goods are sold for delivery at a place other than the place of removal, then the value of such excisable goods shall be deemed to be the transaction value, excluding the cost of transportation from the place of removal upto the place of delivery of such excisable goods. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....& C, Aurangabad - 2015 (329) E.L.T. 341 (Tri.-Mumbai) has taken a view in identical facts that freight will be allowable as a deduction from the composite price. Thus, the contention of the Department to include the freight amount in the assessable value does not meet the test of law and hence not legally sustainable. Hence, we find no merit in order passed by the appellate authority. 4.5 We also find that in view of the various judgments cited by the Ld. Advocates, freight amount is not includable in the assessable value of the goods for charging excise duty. Since we have decided the matter on merits of the case, we are not going to the issue of limitation raised by Ld. Advocate. 5. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law." 4.3 This Tribunal further in the case of Panama Petrochem Ltd.(supra) dealing the same issue observed as under:- "4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue involved in the present case is that whether the freight/insurance charged separately in the sale invoices of excisable goods is includible in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... As regards the first criterion, the place of removal is factory gate, however the goods were delivered at customer place. Therefore goods were sold for delivery not at the place of removal (i.e. factory gate) but at other place i.e. customer door step. We have perused copies of the purchase contract placed by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd and Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. and invoices issued by the Appellant. From the invoices, it is seen that the freight/insurance shown in the invoices is in addition to basic price of the goods. It is clear from the terms of the purchase contract that basic price and other components have to be indicated separately. Therefore, there is no dispute that basic price and the freight/insurance components are clearly indicated separately in the invoices and therefore criterion i.e. cost of transportation should be in addition to the basic price of the goods stand fulfilled. 4.4 In the light of these facts and legal provisions, we find no valid reason for disallowing the deduction for the freight/insurance paid inasmuch as the sales are FOR destination. We also find that a coordinate Bench of CESTAT in the case of Sterlite Optical Technologie....