2026 (2) TMI 512

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ly to IRCTC under an Agreement; on conducting of an audit, it appeared to the Department that the delivery of the goods was made at the place of the buyer at the contracted price; the Purchase Order shows that the amount of freight component will be charged extra; the gross price shown in the invoices was not altered even when the freight paid was less than the equalized freight; thus, the appellants have inflated the value of the excisable goods to avail excess refund, by way of self-credit, in terms of the Notification No.56/2002-CE dated 14.11.2002, as amended. Show cause notices dated 05.05.2014, 07.05.2014, 02.11.2015 & 16.04.2015, covering the period 2008-09 to 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15, demanding excess refund of Rs.15,78,717/- Rs.4....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... at the buyers premises. In other words, the point of sale is the buyer's premises. In these circumstances the place of removal, as per definition in Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 becomes the buyers premises, as that is the place or premises from where the excisable goods were sold after the clearance from the factory from where such goods were removed. That being the case, the freight charges are clearly includible in the assessable value. Therefore, duty paid by them on the impugned goods on value inclusive of the freight charges has been correctly paid and consequently the impugned refund (self-credit) thereof under notification No. 56/2002-C.E. has also been correctly taken. We find that the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r, the duty was correctly paid and hence the impugned refund correctly taken. 5. We also note that the extended period has also been invoked in respect of the Order-in-Original dated 31-12-2012. In this regard, we find that it has not been brought out as to what which was required to be brought to the notice of the Department as per any provision law was not brought to the department's notice. The appellants had been filing their ER-1 returns showing all the details required to be shown therein. It has been held by Supreme Court in the case of Commr. v. Champhar Drugs Liniments - 2002-TIOL-266-SC-CX = 1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 (S.C.) that something positive other than mere inaction or failure on the assessee's part or conscious withhold....