TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 333
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... at EPIP Industrial Estate Rajabagan, Byrnihat, Dist.-Ri-Bhoi, Meghalaya, Pin-793101 and is therefore availing the benefit of area based exemption Notification No.32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999. 2. Though none is present for the appellants, however, as the appeals are of the year 2007 concerning the period of November 2004 to September 2005, it is proposed to examine the present appeals with the help of the ld.AR for the Revenue. 3. The appellants are concerned with the sale of finished goods to different buyers on payment of appropriate central excise duty. While raising such invoices, it is noticed that the appellants do not separately charge for freight to the buyers and whatever freight charges were paid by the appellant is the selling....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entered into the agreements. The cost of transportation was obviously reflected in the books of accounts as it has been actually spent and realized. But they argued that the freight has got othing to do with the duty of excise as it does not form a part of the value." 6. We find this finding to be the basis of the Order-in-Original, upholding the demand raised against the appellant. In appellate proceedings, the learned Commissioner(Appeals) has noted as under:- "I have gone through the case records and considered the averments made in the appeal. Section 4(1)(a) of the Act is applicable only when the transaction value is for delivery (of goods) at the time and place of removal. The price in the instant case is inclusive of cost....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax and other taxes, if any, actually paid, shall be deemed to include the duty payable on such goods.] 8. A reading thereof would show that with regard to goods cleared with respect to the value, the valuation of excisable goods is required to be determined (for purpose of levy of duty) in accordance with the provisions of section 4(1)(a). In the present circumstances as noted from the records it has been the consistent plea of the appellant that the value of the goods cleared by them is required to be determined in terms of section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act and therefore there is no need to resort to provision of sub-section (1) (b) of Section 4 and thereby adopt Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules. Rule 5 of the Central Excise Valuat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 4(1)(a), thus in order to satisfy the transaction value following ingredients required to be met with consideration are : (i) price to be the sale consideration (ii) buyer and seller not to be related and (iii) the goods must be sold by the assessee for delivery at the time of place of removal. 10. In the instant case, as noticed from the records, whatever price has been charged in the invoice is not disputed to be the sole consideration, between unrelated buyer. The goods were not sold to any related person and there is nothing to state that the impugned sales were not at an arms length. Furthermore, it is not disputed that the goods were sold by the assessee at the place of removal at the time of delivery.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s transport agencies to your buyers and you have borne the transportation charges. That means the transportation charges are included in the assessable value. According to rule 5 of Central Excise Valuation Rules 2000 read with Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 the transportation charges are excludible from the assessable value, in case of sale from the factory gate for delivery to the buyers' premises. In this context the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Escorts J.C.B. Ltd. Vs C.C.E. Delli-II and Prabhat Zarda Factory Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. reported in 2002 (146) E.L.T. 31 (SC) and 2002 (146) E.L.T. 197 (S.C.) held that "there is no question of including the freight etc. right up to the buyers premises even though delivery may be ef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refund in accordance with the said notification and in no case it can be held as "wrongly received excess refund". It is well settled in law that when the exemption is allowed by the department, is within the framework of the law and in strict conformity of the language used in the notification; the assessee cannot be deprived of his legitimate benefit. 15. It may also be apt to state here that Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules, will come into play only when the price of the manufactured goods is not determinable in terms of Section 4(1)(a). It is settled law that in case the price of the goods is determinable in terms of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act ibid, Section 4(1)(b) thereof would not come into play. Reliance in this regard is placed on t....