LexCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR versus M/S. ISPAT INDUSTRIES LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 15 S.C.R. 259 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, A NAGPUR v. M/S. ISPAT INDUSTRIES LTD. (Civil Appeal No. 637 of 2007) OCTOBER 07, 2015 [A. K. SIKRI AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.] Excise Laws - Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 - s.4 B - Valuation of excisable goods - Place of removal of goods C for purpose of s. 4 of the Act - Period involved being 28.09.1996 to 31.03.2003 - Whether, by virtue of a transit insurance policy in the name of the manufacturer, excise duty is liable to be recovered on freight charges incurred for transportation of goods from the factory gate to the buyer's D premises, treating the buyer's premises as the place of removal - Held: s.4 as substituted by the 1973 Amendment Act suffered a further amendment in 1996 - The amendments carried out were to have effect from 28. 9. 1996, which is also the starting point on facts in the present case - E With effect from the Amendment Act of 28.9. 1996, the place of removal only has reference to places from which the manufacturer is to sell goods manufactured by him, and can, in no circumstances, have reference to the place .of delivery which may, on facts, be th~ buyer's premises - By an F Amendment Act which came into effect on 1. 7. 2000, s. 4 was substituted yet again -'- For the second period in question in the present case, namely, 1.7. 2000 to 31.3. 2003, the depot, premises of a consignment agent or any other place from which excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance G from the factory are no longer places of removal -Also, the definition of "transaction value" makes it clear that freight or transportation expenses are not included in calculating the excise duty payable- By an Amendment Act with effect from 14. 5. 2003, s. 4 was again amended- On and after 14. 5. 2003, H 259 260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 15 S.C.R. A the position as it obtained from 28.9.1996 to 1. 7.2000 has now been reinstated - r.5 of the Central Excise Rules as substituted in 2003 also confirms the position that the cost of transportation from the place of removal to the place of delivery is to be excluded, save and except in a case where B the factory is not the place of removal - Thus, in law, it is clear that for the period from 28. 9. 1996 up to 1. 7. 2000, the place of removal has reference only to places from which goods are to be sold by the manufacturer, and has no reference to the place of delivery which may be either the c buyer's premises or such other premises as the buyer may direct the manufacturer to send his goods - Revenue's argument that freight charges must be included as the sale in the present facts took place at the buyer's premises is incorrect- Further, for the period 1. 7. 2000 to 31. 3. 2003 there D will be no extended place of removal, the factory premises or the warehouse (in the circumstances mentioned in the Section), alone being places of removal - Under no circumstances can the buyer's premises, therefore, be the place of removal for the purpose of s.4 on the facts of the E present case - Central Excise Va/uc.,ion (Determination of F G H Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 - rr. 5 and 7. CCE & Customs v. Roofit Industries Ltd., (2015) 319 E.L.T. 221 (S.C.); Commissioner Central Excise, Mumbai-I/Iv. Mis. Emco Ltd. [Judgment dated July 31, 2015 of-Supreme Court in Civil Appeal 3418 of 2004 and Civil Appea: 8966 of 2011]- distinguished. Escorts JCB Ltd. v. CCE (2003) 1 SCC 281; Prabhat Zarda Factory Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise 2002 (146) ELT 497 (S.C.); Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. (1984) 1 SCC 467; and VIP Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs & Centre/ Excise (2003) 5 sec 507 - relied on. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, 261 NAGPUR v. M/S. ISPAT INDUSTRIES A.K. Roy v. Valtas Ltd. (1973) 3 SCC 503; A Government of India v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. (1995) 4 sec 349 - referred to. Case Law Reference (2003) 1-SCC 281 relied on Para 6 B 2002 (146) ELT 497 (S.C.) relied on Para 7 (2015) 319 E.L.T. 221 (S.C.) distinguished Para 8 (1973) 3 sec 503 referred to Para 11 (1984) 1 sec 467 relied on Para 13 c (1995) 4 sec 349 referred to Para 14 (2003) 5 sec 501 relied on Para 28 CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 637 D of 2007. From the Judgment and Order No. A/1392/WZB/06-C- lll(EB ), dated 24.07.2006 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zona
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.