TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 865
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the order of the adjudicating authority. 2. The brief facts of the case are that in the course of audit, the department noticed that the appellants have collected certain amount from their customers under the category of freight charges and have not paid Central Excise duty on the said amount. It was also noticed that as per the purchase orders, the prices adopted are on ex-works basis, however, due to sensitive nature of the goods, these goods have to be delivered invariably at the premises of their customer through a specialized vehicle and they also obtain acknowledgment from customers as per the norms of PESO (Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization). It was also noted that insurance of these goods in transit also lies with th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lace of removal. He has also relied on various other judgments including Schneider Electric India Ltd Vs CCE & ST [Final Order No.11164-11165/2024 dt.16.05.2024] in support that in the case of ex-factory sale, the freight charges collected from customers over and above sale price is not includible in the assessable value. He has also relied on catena of judgments in support that buyer's premises cannot be a place of removal. He has further submitted that merely because risk is being borne by the seller, it does not mean that he has retained the ownership. He has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts JCB Vs CCE [2002 (146) ELT 31 (SC)] and decision of Coordinate Bench in the case of Associated Strips Vs CCE, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llants had no bonafide belief that the freight charges were not includible in the assessable value especially when the appellants had acknowledged that in respect of certain customers like Coal India Ltd and Singareni Collieries Co Ltd, cost of transportation is loaded in the value of goods, whereas, in respect of other customers, they have purposefully split the value and collected the amount separately. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records. 7. The first issue to be determined in this case is whether the goods have been sold at the factory gate or they have been sold at buyer's premises, whereby, the place of removal shifts to the buyer's premises and secondly, whether in the facts of the case, extended period is invokable or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ontract have to be read harmoniously with the facts of the case and merely because there is a separate contract for undertaking transportation, it will not become a case of transportation simpliciter. 8. In this regard, the appellants have placed reliance on various judgments including CCE, Nagpur Vs Ispat Industries Ltd (supra). We, however, find that this issue has been examined by various Coordinate Benches and especially by the Larger Bench in the case of Ramco Cements Ltd Vs CCE, Puducherry [Interim Order No. 40020/2023 dt.21.12.2023], wherein, both the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Aurangabad Vs Roofit Industries [2015 (319) ELT 221 (SC)] and in the case of CCE, Nagpur Vs Ispat Indsutries Ltd (supra) were c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant to decide either way. Insofar as the evidence relied upon by the department in support that there was deliberate evasion or suppression warranting invocation of extended period, we find that merely because they have paid excise duty in respect of certain contracts inclusive of freight, whereas, in respect of certain contracts, they have not paid in the similar manner, it cannot be imputed that it was done deliberately. We find force in the submission that in respect of certain contracts with PSUs, the buyer himself wanted the consolidated price for delivery at their premises, whereas, in respect of other set of buyers, they wanted separate contract for transportation. Therefore, even though sum total of all these transactions and cont....