2026-VIL-1372-CESTAT-ALH-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE CESTAT Cases

Central Excise - Place of removal, Inclusion of transportation cost in assessable value in FOR destination sales - Appellant manufactured and supplied goods to customers on FOR destination basis. Audit revealed that the Appellant had not paid central excise duty on the value of transportation of goods from its factory to buyers' premises resulting in short payment of duty - Whether the place of removal for goods sold on FOR destination basis is the buyer's premises or factory gate - HELD - When goods are sold on FOR destination basis, the place of delivery is the buyer's premises and the cost of transportation up to the buyer's premises has to be included in the assessable value for the purpose of excise duty. However, during the relevant period there were conflicting decisions regarding the place of removal and therefore it was perfectly possible for the Appellant to have entertained a belief that the cost of transportation of goods from its premises to the buyer's premises was not includable in the assessable value. No mala fide can be attributed to the Appellant. It cannot be said that the non-payment or short payment of duty was due to fraud or collusion or willful misstatement or suppression of fact or violation of any Act or Rules with an intent to evade payment of duty - When a SCN was earlier issued for a prior period covering the same issue and all relevant facts were in the knowledge of the Department, the same facts cannot be taken as suppression of facts by the Appellant in a subsequent Notice as these facts were already in the knowledge of the authorities. The entire period of demand is beyond the normal period of limitation and accordingly the demand is barred by limitation - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page