2025 (3) TMI 953

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l against the order dated 31.08.2018 in Appeal No. E/30081/2019. They are also in appeal against other Order-in-Originals as below : Appeal No. OIO/OIA NO. & Date Period Involved Amount Confirmed E/30245/2017 HYD-EXCUS-OOO-COM-047- 16-17 Dated 26-10-2016 April 2015 to March 2016 2, 53, 86, 866 E/30827/2018 i) 88/2013(H-I)CE dated 30.08.2013 (O-I-A) ii)8/2013-CE(Commr) dated 11.10.2013 iii) HYD-EXCUS-OO1-COM- 013-14-15 Dated 23-10- 2014 iv)HYD-EXCUS-OO1-COM- 023-15-16 Dated 31-08- 2015 April 2011 to March 2015 3, 55, 66, 730 E/30081/2019 HYD-EXCUS-OOO-COM-009- 18-19 Dated 31-08-2018 April 2016 to June 2017 2, 48, 21, 497     TOTAL 8, 57, 75, 093 2. The issues involved in all these appeals are ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Supreme Court in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd., supra, to support his submission that the buyer's premises in law can never be place of removal and therefore the expenses/charges on account of transportation and insurance etc., cannot be part of the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. He is also relying on some of the judgments passed by Co-ordinate Benches of Tribunal, which are as under: i) Air Liquid India Holding Pvt Ltd., Vs CCE, ST, Vadodara -II [2024 (9) TMI 1166 (CESTAT - Ahm)] ii) CCT & Customs, Medchal Commissionerate Vs ICOMM Tele Ltd., [2019 (7) TMI 55 (CESTAT- Hyd)] He further submits that in their own case, this Tribunal for earlier period has already allowed their appeal by holding that fre....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....akes distinction between FOR delivery and FOR sale. According to him, it is FOR delivery and not FOR sale. Learned AR has also relied on certain other decisions of the Tribunal which are as under : i) M/s H.D Wires Pvt Ltd., Vs Chief Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Indore (MP) [2024 (8) TMI 711 (CESTAT - New Delhi)] ii) Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd., & Mapal India Pvt td., Vs The Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangalore [2022 (7) TMI 352 (Karnataka High Court)] iii) Ambuja Cement Ltd., Vs Commissioner of CE & ST, Surat-I [2024 (11) TMI 719 (CESTAT - Ahmedabad)] iv) M/s The Ramco Cements Ltd., Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Trichy [2024 (10) TMI 807 (CESTAT-Chennai)] v) M/s Rane Brake Lining Ltd., Vs Commissioner of G....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t Industries Ltd., Emco Ltd., and Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd., Karnataka, supra. 8. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 9. It is an admitted fact that appellants were showing, ex-works price and freight and insurance charges separately on their invoices. However, it is also an admitted fact that as per purchase order, the delivery was "free at destination". Therefore, even though they might be recovering these freight and insurance charges separately by way of reimbursement at a later date, it would not affect the terms of the purchase order which is apparent from plain reading of the purchase order. Further, merely because they have paid the VAT on ex-works value that in itself cannot become the basis for payment of central excise....