Rollatainers Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Rollatainers Limited vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided May 07, 2002

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/28171

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/28171
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: K Usha, N T C.N.B.
Decided On: May 07, 2002
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rollatainers Limited

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2002)(82)ECC288

Excerpt

1. challenge at the instance of the assessee is against the order-in-appeal no. 757-c.e./dlh/2001, dated 3-9-2001 passed by the commissioner of central excise, new delhi. it is contended on behalf of the appellant that the issue raised in this appeal is covered in its favour by the decision of this tribunal in associated strips ltd. and anr. v. cce, new delhi [2002 (143) e.l.t. 131 (tribunal) = 2002 (49) rlt 506(cegat-del.)] 2. on going through the terms of the purchase contract between the parties, it is clear that the price is ex-factory. it is true that the transit risk insurance policy is taken by the seller, appellant. that itself will not decide the issue. in majority of the transactions the freight has been paid by the buyer.3. in the light of the terms of the contract between the parties, it is clear that the sale has taken place at the factory gate and not at the buyers place. in view of the above, the appellant is perfectly justified in submitting that the issue raised in the appeal is covered in his favour by the decision of this tribunal in associated strips ltd. we, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

Full Judgment

1. Challenge at the instance of the assessee is against the Order-in-Appeal No. 757-C.E./DLH/2001, dated 3-9-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the issue raised in this appeal is covered in its favour by the decision of this Tribunal in Associated Strips Ltd. and Anr. v. CCE, New Delhi [2002 (143) E.L.T. 131 (Tribunal) = 2002 (49) RLT 506(CEGAT-Del.)] 2. On going through the terms of the purchase contract between the parties, it is clear that the price is ex-factory. It is true that the Transit risk insurance policy is taken by the seller, appellant. That itself will not decide the issue. In majority of the transactions the freight has been paid by the buyer.

3. In the light of the terms of the contract between the parties, it is clear that the sale has taken place at the factory gate and not at the buyers place. In view of the above, the appellant is perfectly justified in submitting that the issue raised in the appeal is covered in his favour by the decision of this Tribunal in Associated Strips Ltd. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Rollatainers Limited vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Excise Same Judge K Usha, N T C.N.B.