SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

K.SREEDHARAN, LAJJA RAM, S.S.KANG, P.S.BAJAJ, K.K.BHATIA
Collector of Central Excise, Meerut-II – Appellant
Versus
Prabhat Zarda Factory Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Sanjeev Srivastava,K. Narasimhan

ORDER

Per Lajja Ram :

In this reference to the Larger Bench, the issue for consideration is that in a case where the ownership of the excisable goods remained with the manufacturer upto the place of the buyer from where the said goods were delivered to the buyer, what would be the "place of removal" for the purpose of Clause (iii) of Section 4 (4) (b) of the Central Excises Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act').

2. In Escorts J.C.B. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi - 1999 (35) RLT 9 (CEGAT), a bench of this Tribunal had taken a view that when the manufacturer continued to remain the owner of the goods till the goods reached the buyer's destination, the place of removal for the purpose of Section 4 (4) (b) (iii) of the Act will be the buyers' premises.

It was an admitted position that M/s. Escorts had insured the goods on their account when they were transported to the place of their buyers. Insurance policy was in their name. In case of loss in transit, the Insurance Company was to reimburse them. M/s. Escorts continued to have the property in the goods when the same were in transit. They continued to remain the owner of the said goods. The sale took place

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top