Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Alcatel India Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Alcatel India Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Mar 26, 2004

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/34719

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/34719
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: K Usha, N T C.N.B.
Decided On: Mar 26, 2004
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Alcatel India Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2004)(171)ELT427TriDel

Excerpt

1. the respondent is a manufacture of telecom equipment. the basic issue raised in these appeals of the revenue is whether freight and insurance should form part of the assessable value of the equipment.commissioner (appeals) held that the sale of the goods had taken place prior to their transport and therefore, place of removal cannot be taken as the buyer's premises so as to include freight and insurance in the assessable value. while reaching that decision, he was guided by the decision ot the apex court in the case of m/s. escorts jcb ltd. v.c.c.e., delhi-11 2. we have perused the record and heard the submissions made on behalf of both the sides. a perusal of the sale invoices produced by the respondent (no, 1040 for e.g.) clearly shows that the goods had been sold (de ocb installation, telephone bhavan, saifabad; hyderabad in the case of no. 1040) before their sales. the cost of the machine and transport charges are also separately shown. such invoicing makes it clear that the goods had been sold prior to their transport. in such a situation, the revenue is not justified in contending that place of removal is the place of the purchaser. the commissioner (appeals)'s order cannot be faulted at all. the present appeals lack completely in any merit. they fail and are rejected. the respondents shall be entitled to consequential relief.

Full Judgment

1. The respondent is a manufacture of telecom equipment. The basic issue raised in these appeals of the Revenue is whether freight and insurance should form part of the assessable value of the equipment.

Commissioner (Appeals) held that the sale of the goods had taken place prior to their transport and therefore, place of removal cannot be taken as the buyer's premises so as to include freight and insurance in the assessable value. While reaching that decision, he was guided by the decision ot the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Escorts JCB Ltd. v.C.C.E., Delhi-11 2. We have perused the record and heard the submissions made on behalf of both the sides. A perusal of the sale invoices produced by the respondent (No, 1040 for e.g.) clearly shows that the goods had been sold (DE OCB Installation, Telephone Bhavan, Saifabad; Hyderabad in the case of No. 1040) before their sales. The cost of the machine and transport charges are also separately shown. Such invoicing makes it clear that the goods had been sold prior to their transport. In such a situation, the Revenue is not justified in contending that place of removal is the place of the purchaser. The Commissioner (Appeals)'s order cannot be faulted at all. The present appeals lack completely in any merit. They fail and are rejected. The respondents shall be entitled to consequential relief.

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