AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 251
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant by upholding the Order-in-Original. 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the appellant was engaged in the manufacture of Copper Ingots falling under Chapter 74 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1985 and was registered with the Central Excise department and was clearing the goods on payment of appropriate excise duty by availing Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002 by way of self-credit of the duty paid through PLA. The Audit of the appellant was conducted by the department for the period April 2006 to July 2007 and it was found that the appellant was selling their goods to their buyers on FOR basis and was bearing the expenses of freight incurred on transportation of goods from factory gat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to their buyers on the FOR basis which means upto the buyers' place, the property/title of the goods lies with the appellant. He also submits that for the purpose of assessment, factory gate is not the place of removal rather it is the buyers' place. He also cites Rule 5 of the Central Excise Determination and Valuation Rules, which clearly provides that when the factory is not the place of removal then transportation from the factory till the place of removal is part of the assessable value and it cannot be excluded from the assessable value. He further submits that the possession of the goods lies with the appellant till delivery at the buyers' premises, therefore, place of removal is buyers' premises and not the appellant's factory. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Pvt Ltd - 2023 SCC Online J&K 333 b) M/s Ravi Crop Science & Shri Dinesh Garg Partner vs. CCE, Jammu - 2023 (1) TMI 1298 CESTAT CHANDIGARH c) M/s Pace Non Woven Fabric Products vs. CCE, Jammu - 2024 (8) TMI 201 CESTAT CHANDIGARH d) Uflex Ltd vs. CCE, Jammu - 2015 (327) ELT 359 (Tri. Del.) e) Hard Castle Petrofer Pvt Ltd vs. CCE, Jammu - 2014 (304) ELT 576 (Tri. Del.) f) Ambuja Cements Ltd vs. UOI - 2009 (236) ELT 431 (P&H) 5. On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order and submits that by including the cost of freight in the assessable value, the appellant has deliberately enhanced the assessable value and paid the hig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsidered by the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in the case of Commr of CGST & CE vs. Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt Ltd (supra) wherein the Hon'ble High Court of J&K framed the substantial question of law for determination as under: "Whether the erroneous refund which was sanctioned under Notification No. 56 of 2002-CE can be recovered under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by invocation of extended period of limitation, where the refund was granted on the basis of any approval, acceptance and assessment relating to the rate of duty?" Further, we find that the Hon'ble High Court of J&K, after considering all the provisions and the decisions on the issue, has answered the substantial question in para 22, which is re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the purposes of section 11A of the Act. The extended period of limitation provided under proviso to sub section 1 of section 11A is not attracted as we find no material on record to demonstrate that the purported erroneous refund was sanctioned in favour of the respondent-assessee on the basis of some fraud, collusion or misstatement/misrepresentation of facts and, that too, with an intention to evade payment of excise duty. The revenue has also failed to make out a case of unjust enrichment having failed to show as to how the respondent has been benefited by such purported erroneous refund sanctioned in its favour by the Competent Authority." 9. Further, we find that the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of J&K in Commr of CGST & CE vs. Kr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso been correctly taken. We find that the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Ambuja Cement v. Union of India - 2009 (236) E.L.T. 431 (P & H) = 2009 (14) S.T.R. 3 (P&H) after a detailed discussion has come to a clear finding that in the circumstances like the ones obtaining in the present case the buyer's premises is the place of removal. As per Rule 5 (Explanation-2) of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000, it was clarified for removal of doubts 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 purpose of determining the value of excisable goods. We are not consciously referring to th....