TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1222
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 700 107. 2. The facts of the case are that M/s. Yamuna Power & Infrastructure Limited, Banagram Bishnupur, Rasapunja, 24 PGS, West Bengal - 700 104 (hereinafter referred to as the "appellant") is engaged in the manufacture of Panels, Cu. Busbar, Chember Capacitor, etc., falling under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 2.1. A Show Cause Notice dated 17.07.2020 was issued to the appellant for the Financial Year 2016- 17 and 2017-18 (up to June, 2017) raising the following issues: - (a) Availment and utilization of irregular CENVAT Credit to tune of Rs. 10,852/- on the basis of ineligible documents. (b) Non-payment of central excise duty to tune of Rs.23,750/- against clearance of spares during the peri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....central excise duty of Rs.23,750/- on clearance of spares, along with interest and penalty. (iii) The demand of central excise duty of Rs.5,65,047/- on account of non-inclusion of outward freight and insurance in the assessable value has been restricted to Rs.4,79,005/-, after deducting the payment made by the appellant of Rs.86,042/-. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 6. As regards the demand of Rs.4,79,005/- confirmed against the appellant, the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the said demand has been raised on the amounts of freight and insurance charged and realized from their customers separately, on an actual basis, which were not included in the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....find that the demand of central excise duty of Rs.4,79,005/-, being disputed by the appellant in this case, has been confirmed against the appellant on account of non-inclusion of freight and insurance charges received from the customers in the assessable value of excisable goods. I also find that there is no evidence brought on record to substantiate the claim that the appellant is responsible for handing over the goods at the buyer's premise. Hence, I am of the view that the transportation and insurance charges up to the buyer's premises are not includable in the assessable value. Further, it is on record that the appellant has received the freight and insurance charges separately. As per Section 4 of the Act, the transaction value ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....saction value" makes it clear that freight or transportation expenses are not included in calculating the excise duty payable." 9.1. I find the ratio of the decision cited supra to be squarely applicable to the factual matrix of the present case. Therefore, by applying the ratio laid down in the decision in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd (supra), I hold that the freight and insurance charges are not includable in the assessable value for the purpose of calculating the central excise duty. Accordingly, the demand of central excise duty confirmed in the impugned order on this score by inclusion of the freight and insurance charges is not sustainable and consequently, the same stands set aside. 9.2. Since the above demand itself is fou....