2026-VIL-1515-CESTAT-HYD-CE
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-1515-CESTAT-HYD-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE CESTAT Cases

Central Excise - Place of Removal and Assessable Value - FOR Sales versus Ex-Factory Sales - Transportation and Loading Charges - Department alleged that the place of removal in respect of sales made by the respondent is the customer's premises and hence, exclusion of transportation and loading charges from the assessable value was not in conformity with Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Whether the supply should be treated as FOR basis including transportation charges in assessable value or as ex-factory sale excluding such charges - HELD - The classification of sales as FOR basis or ex-factory basis depends on examination of purchase orders and terms and conditions of sale applicable to each buyer. The adjudicating authority examined the relied upon purchase orders and appropriately distinguished them into two categories viz. those where sales are on FOR basis and those treated as ex-factory sales based on whether freight charges were integral to the price or separately mentioned - Where purchase orders indicate freight charges separately and material is inspected after receipt at buyer's premises, the sale is treated as ex-factory sale and not on FOR basis - The criteria for FOR sales as decided in CCE Versus Roofit Industries Ltd were met only in respect of certain customers where price was consolidated and inclusive of freight - The Department failed to examine all purchase orders and relied only on sample purchase orders specifically mentioned in the SCN and therefore the adjudicating authority was justified in examining only those relied upon documents – The impugned order is upheld and the appeal filed by the department is dismissed - Invocation of extended period - Regarding invocation of extended period, the department was aware of the fact relating to transportation and inclusion or exclusion of charges from assessable value in view of repeated audit visits. The entire issue of whether transportation cost can be included and whether place of removal can be buyer's premises was subject matter of conflicting judgments and differing interpretations of law - Due to conflicting views and alternative interpretations available before the relevant date, extended period could not have been invoked. The CBIC Circular No. 1065/4/2015-CX dated 08.06.2018 clarified that extended period should not be invoked in cases where an alternative interpretation was taken by the assessee before the date of Supreme Court judgment as the issue is in the nature of interpretation of law. Since extended period could not be invoked, penalty under Section 11AC was also not imposable.
Download File
show more Judgements  

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Kasi Viswanathan V

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GST Critical issues: ITC on...
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Security-Code
New Code?

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Security-Code
New Code?

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?