TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 122
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he goods even though the goods were supplied on FOR basis. The finding recorded by the Additional Commissioner for confirming the demand is as follows: "11.3 As per the PO received from M/s 181W Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., the Scope of Work also included transportation of material to site including transit insurance. 11.4 As per the delivery terms of the PO with M/s Larsen & Toubro Ltd. the goods shall be delivered at their site stores. I also find that the net rates of the goods are inclusive of freight charges. 11.5 In the Supply Order received from M/s Western Coalfields Ltd., I find that the prices are FOR destination basis and the Clause no. 5 says that the transportation by road shall be arranged by the assessee on freight paid basis. In Clause no. 10, I further find that the final inspection shall be carried out by the consignee at destination/stores. 11.6. It is thus clear from the terms and condition as contained under the POs, which are available on record, that the buyers have placed the orders as FOR/ destination basis, i.e. it was the responsibility of the assessee to deliver the goods at the buyer's destination. It is evident that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roduce the relevant portion of the Circular dated 08.06.2018 and it is as follows: "Circular No. 1065/4/2018-CX., dated 8-6-2018 F. No. 116/23/2018-CX-3 Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, New Delhi Subject: 'Place of Removal' under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2017 - Regarding. Attention is invited to Boards circular no. 97/8/2007-CX dated 23.08.2007, 988/12/2014-CX dated 20.10.2014 and 999/6/2015-CX dated 28.02.2015. Attention is also invited to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE vs M/s Roofit Industries Ltd. 2015 (319) ELT 221 (SC) = 2015-TIOL-87-SC-CX, CCE vs Ispat Industries Ltd 2015 (324) ELT 670 (SC) = 2015-TIOL-238-SC-CX, CCE, Mumbai-III vs Emco Ltd 2015 (322) ELT 394 (SC) = 2015-TIOL-163-SC-CX and CCE & ST vs. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd dated 1.2.2018 in Civil Appeal No. 11261 of 2016 = 2018-TIOL-42-SC-CX. In this regard, reference have been received from field formations seeking clarification on implementation of aforesaid circulars of the Board in vie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uations except where the contract for sale is FOR contract in the circumstances identical to the judgment in the case of CCE, Mumbai-III v. Emco Ltd. - 2015 (322) E.L.T. 394 (S.C.) and CCE v. M/s. Roofit Industries Ltd. 2015 (319) E.L.T. 221 (S.C.). To summarise, in the case of FOR destination sale such as M/s. Emco Ltd. and M/s. Roofit Industries where the ownership, risk in transit, remained with the seller till goods are accepted by buyer on delivery and till such time of delivery, seller alone remained the owner of goods retaining right of disposal, benefit has been extended by the Apex Court on the basis of facts of the cases. (ii) Clearance for export of goods by a manufacturer shall continue to be dealt in terms of Circular No. 999/6/2015-CX., dated 28-2-2015 as the judgments cited above did not deal with issue of export of goods. In these cases otherwise also the buyer is located outside India. xxxxxxxxxxx 6. Facts to be verified: This circular only bring to the notice of the field the various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court which may be referred for further guidance in individual cases based on facts and circumstances of each of the case. Past....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....did not take place at the factory gate of the assessee but at the place of the buyer on the delivery of the goods in question. 14. The clear intent of the aforesaid purchase order was to transfer the property in goods to the buyer at the premises of the buyer when the goods are delivered and by virtue of Section 19 of Sale of Goods Act, the property in goods was transferred at that time only. Section 19 reads as under: "19. Property passed when intended to pass. - (1) Where there is a contract for the sale of specific or ascertained goods the property in them is transferred to the buyer at such time as the parties to the contract intend it to be transferred. (2) For the purpose of ascertaining the intention of the parties regard shall be had to the terms of the contract, the conduct of the parties and the circumstances of the case. (3) Unless a different intention appears, the rules contained in Sections 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. 15. These are clear finding of facts on the aforesaid lines recorded by the Adjudicating....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issioner of Central Excise and S.T. vs. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd.-2018 (9) G.S.T.L. 337 (S.C.) and the Circular dated 08.06.2018 of the Board and held that what is important to notice is that the title of the goods had passed from the seller to the buyer at the place of destination, which was the address of the buyer. The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows: "13. The CESTAT, in the case of Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. v. C.C., C.E. & S.T-Commissioner of Central Tax [CEA 56/2019], has recorded in paragraph No. 5 that as per the purchase orders, appellant was required to supply the goods at the buyer's premises and the price of goods would include 'outward freight'. Similarly, in the case of MAPAL India Pvt. Ltd. [CEA 71/2019], the CESTAT has recorded a similar finding. ***** 16. This Court in the case of Madras Cements Ltd., has held as follows: "11. From the facts of the present case, it is clear from the invoices that title of the goods had passed on from seller to buyer only at the place of destination, which is the address of the buyer. As such, the buyer had no right over the goods till delivered to it. The Tribunal has not considered thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f 2021 decided on 18.04.2024 examined the issue at length and held that the cost of transportation from the factory premises to the premises of the buyer when the sale is on FOR basis would have to included in the transaction value. The division bench extensively referred to the Circular dated 08.06.2018 and the decision of the Supreme Court in Roofit Industries. The decision of the Tribunal in Hindustan Zinc is based on the two Larger Bench decisions of the Tribunal in The Ramco Cements and Sweety Industries. 16. Another division bench of the Tribunal in M/s. H.D. Wires Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Chief Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Indore (M.P.)-Excise Appeal No. 55526 of 2023 (DB) decided on 08.08.2024 also was held: "11. We now consider the facts of the present case. It is not disputed that the appellant had collected the amount towards freight from the customers but have not included the same in the transaction value and hence, no central excise duty was paid on the said amount. The ownership of the goods was to be transferred at the buyers' premises, where the sale actually took place and, therefore, the 'place of removal' for the purpose of valuation under Section....