ORDER
S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)
1. After hearing both sides on this application filed and considering that the issue involved herein is whether freight charge when not shown separately in invoice, the same could be allowed as deduction. On this issue, the Tribunal vide its Order in the case of West Coast Paper Mills Ltd v. CCE, Bangalore has held that if the goods are sold for delivery at a place other than the place of removal, then the value of such excisable goods shall be deemed to be the transaction value excluding the actual cost of transportation from the place of removal up to the place of delivery of such excisable goods, provided the cost of transportation charge to the buyer in addition to the price foi the goods and shown separately in the invoice for such excisable goods, is the mandate of Rule 5. However, the Tribunal held that in that case, the cost of transportation was not shown in the invoice separately for the goods and since the law did not require charging of duty on freight. Therefore, the lapse in not showing the transport charges separately cannot result in levy of duty on such components. We find that similar view was also taken in the case of Mitsu Chem (P) Ltd v. CCE, Thane Order No. A-984/WZB/2004, dated 2-11-2004. Following the same, we would grant total waiver of the pre deposit requirements and Order stay of recovery thereof pending the regular hearing of this appeal. At that stage, we will have to consider whether the deduction are equivalent to actual freight or in the guise of components of excisable value as was urged by the Ld D.R., since this issue is disputed and submitted by the Id Advocate for the applicants that was not the case in the Show Cause Notice.
2. Application disposed of in above terms.
(Pronounced in Court.)