TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1072
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lants are manufacturers of PVC/HDPE/XLPE insulated & PVC sheathed aluminium copper cables and AAA conductors and are clearing their goods to various Electricity Boards in terms of various contracts/Purchase Orders (PO). The Department felt that since the appellants was selling their products on FOR destination basis/ for delivery at the stores of customers by road and responsibility/ liability of the appellant included packing, forwarding and payment of unloading charges/ transit insurance, etc., the ownership of the goods rests with the appellant during the transit and till the goods are delivered at the customers' premises and therefore, sale will be completed only upon the delivery of the goods at customers' site. The department has gone....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ght separately, a holistic perusal of all this terms and conditions would clearly indicate that the goods are accepted only when they reach the destination in good condition and liability for their transport including pre-payment of transport is on the appellants themselves. Therefore, in the factual matrix it is obvious that sale has got concluded only at the destination of the buyer and not at the factory gate. We also note that while the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of Ispat Industries Ltd (supra), the department has placed reliance on various judgments of the Tribunals including Larger Bench decision in the case of Ramco Cements Ltd (supra). The issue which needs to be decided is as to what would be the place of sale in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a), the place of removal will be at the buyer's premises and obviously the cost of transportation, insurance, etc., if any, incurred by the assessee are required to be included in the assessable value. However, it is always important to decide as to what shall be the place of removal having regards to the factual matrix and relevant documents. Therefore, in case it is clearly established that the sale has not taken place at the factory and it has been effected only at the buyer's premises then such costs would be includable in the assessable value. We find that in the case of Ramco Cements Ltd Vs CCE, Puducherry (supra), the Larger Bench of this Tribunal, inter alia, examined the issue of eligibility of Cenvat credit of Goods Transport Agen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....). Similarly, we find that in the case of Principal Commissioner, Raipur Vs M/s Unique Structures & Towers Ltd [Final Order No.51254/2019 dt.24.09.2019], the factual matrix was almost identical to the present appeal. The Tribunal considered various judgments including Ispat Industries (supra), Roofit Industries (supra) and M/s Ultra Tech Cement (supra) and distinguished the judgment in the case of Ispat Industries (supra) by observing that the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court were only in reference to the context of the fact that once the goods have been sold at the factory gate with an agreement to have the payment after 30 days of delivery, the amount of insurance risk as borne by the transporter is part of the transportation charges....