EID PARRY (I) LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Stay application and appeal were taken up together, since the issue lies in a short compass which has already been decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the Tribunal and has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We waive the pre -deposit and take up the appeal itself with the consent of both the parties. This appeal is directed against the Order in Appeal No. 37/2002 (M -III) dt. 6.5.2002, by which the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the transportation and insurance charges incurred after the goods were removed from the factory were to be added to the assessable value.

(2.) Aggrieved by this order the appellants have appealed before us. Ld. Advocate. Shri N. Venkataraman, along with Ld. Advocate, Shri A. Vijayaragavan, submitted that the issue has already been covered by the CEGAT Judgement rendered In the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. Anand Gates (1) Ltd., 2002 (52) RLT 758 (CEGAT -Del.) in which it has been held that the freight charges are paid by the manufacturers and recovered from customer and open insurance policy taken by manufacturer and the Invoice and G.R. In the name of customer, the freight charges are not to be added as place of removal is factory. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissing Civil Appeal No. (Dairy No. D 15316) of 2002, filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi against CEGAT Order No. 93 -94/2002 A dt. 13.3.2002 In the case of Frexton Cables India v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi -I, reported in, 2002 (49) RLT 501 (CEGAT -Del.) :, 2002 (104) ECR 189 (T) has held that the goods were sold for station of despatch, Railway Receipts were in the name of the consignee and recovered later, CEGAT has held that property; in the goods passes on to the buyer on goods being delivered to the transporter, that sale, in terms of Section 2(h) takes place on transfer of possession of the goods to the transporter, that taking transit insurance cover by seller does not mean retention of property in goods by seller, that place of removal is seller's place, and that freight and insurance charges up to buyer's premises are not to be added for determining assessable value of the goods.

(3.) THE Ld. Chief Commissioner, Chennai -III, in his report sent by fax C No. V/68/30/52/2002 -JC dt. 10.10.2002, has also come to the conclusion that the appeal filed by the appellants has merits and has to be considered accordingly in the light of the judgement rendered in the case of JCB Escorts case as well as Prabhat Zarda Factory Ltd.